Amarjeet Vs State of Haryana

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 13 Mar 2007 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8402-M of 2007 (2007) 03 P&H CK 0175
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8402-M of 2007

Hon'ble Bench

Satish Kumar Mittal, J

Advocates

Sukhdeep Parmar, for the Appellant; S.S. Mor, Senior DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred
  • Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439
  • Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 307, 34

Judgement Text

Translate:

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashPetitioner Amarjeet has filed this petition u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 45 dated 12.3.2005 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.

2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order dated 22.12.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby bail application of the Petitioner has been dismissed.

3. In the aforesaid case, as per the prosecution version, two boys came to the shop of Ravi and one of them caused bullet injury on Ravi. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that as per investigation, the Petitioner was not among those two boys, but it was found that he was driving the car, in which the aforesaid two boys ran away. Counsel further contends that vide order dated July 13, 2006, passed by this Court, bail was granted to the Petitioner and since then, he was regularly appearing before the trial court. Subsequently, on November 25, 2006, when two prosecution witnesses were present in the trial court, the Petitioner could not appear, due to which his bail bonds were cancelled and he was summoned through non-bailable warrants. Counsel further contends that subsequently, the Petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2006 and since then, he is in custody. He submits that non-appearance of the Petitioner before the trial court on 25.11.2006 was not intentional, as he was ill. In this regard, a medical certificate has also been annexed with this petition. The aforesaid material facts have not been disputed by the State Counsel.

4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the Petitioner and he is, accordingly, ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to his furnishing heavy surety with an undertaking that in future, he will regularly appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More