High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 07 P&H CK 0025

Rakesh alias Sonu vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Inderjit Singh
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M 24969 of 2017

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

29 paragraphs · 338 words
1.

Petitioner-Rakesh alias Sonu has filed this 2nd petition under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular

bail in case FIR No.275, dated 30.09.2016, registered at Police Station

Ellenabad, District Sirsa, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and

Sections 186, 189, 224, 225, 307, 332, 177, 353, 411, 412, 420, 467, 468,

471, 147, 149, 397 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Learned State

counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and

contested the instant petition.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned State counsel and gone through the record.

4.

From the record, I find that as per the prosecution version, FIR,

in the present case, was registered on the statement of EASI Sanjay Kumar.

As per the complainant''s version, when he was producing accused Sanjit @

Shakti @ Sumit in the Court at Ellenabad, then one person standing there

sprayed in his eyes and one another person standing nearby thrown red

chilly powder in the eyes of Constable Anil and got freed accused Sanjit @

Shakti from the police custody. In the meantime, two other persons

standing there also started firing upon the police officials with an intention

to kill them and one fire hit below the left knee of complainant and

thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot in the nearby fields. The

police officials chased the accused and also fired in the air and caught hold

two persons, one named as Ravi and another named as Sunny. During the

investigation, the present petitioner was also arrested in the present case and

he suffered the disclosure statement showing his involvement in the offence.

5.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not

find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

6.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

dismissed.