High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 P&H CK 0428

Ankit @ Godu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avneesh Jhingan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 2754 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 312 words

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

The petitioner is before this Court for regular bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 14.2.2020 under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 148, 149, 307 IPC,

registered at Police Station Meham District Rohtak.

The facts in narrow compass are that the FIR was at the instance of Ashok @ Shoki. It was stated that he was having strained relationship with some

of co-villagers. On 14.2.2020 when he was coming back from his fields, five person including Ankit @ Godu were chasing the complainant on two

motor cycles. One Sahil fired upon the chest of complainant with an intention to kill him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no role has been attributed to the petitioner; there is no allegation that the petitioner was armed or had

inflicted injury. It is contended that the petitioner is in custody since April 2020; investigation is complete.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer. On instructions from SI Joginder Singh submits that the petitioner was involved in 13 other cases out of

which two are pending. He further submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in two pending FIRs he is on bail and it is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner had lodged

three FIRs against the complainant.

Considering that there is an inter-se rivalry; there is no specific injury attributed to the petitioner and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the

petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

The petition is allowed.

It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.