High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjeev Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 7 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 7 December, 2009
CRM-M No. 28376 of 2009                1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-M No.28376 of 2009

                                Date of Decision: December 07 , 2009


Sanjeev Kumar and another                          ...... Petitioners


      Versus

State of Haryana and another                       ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr.H.S.Sullar, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate
            for the complainant.
                   ****

Ajay Tewari, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in complaint case

bearing no.63 dated 30.8.2008, under Sections 324,325,326,302 and 120-B

IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala.

The facts, in brief, giving rise to this case are that deceased

Ashwani Kumar was found dead by the Railway Authorities on 29.04.2008.

By the instant complaint it is alleged that the petitioners along with three

female family members did him to death. It is not disputed that the three

female family members have been granted anticipatory bail by the

impugned order. In my opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case

the petitioners also deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that there is
CRM-M No. 28376 of 2009 2

possibility that the witnesses may tamper with the evidence. There is only

one alleged eyewitness who has given his statement in the complaint on

3.12.2008. No allegation has been made of any intimidation or allurement

to the said witnesses during the past one year.

So, in the circumstances I deem it appropriate to grant the

concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners but with the condition that

this concession is liable to be withdrawn at any time in case the petitioners

are found to be threatening or inducing any of the witnesses or otherwise

tampering with the evidence.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioners they

are ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting

Officer/Investigating Officer/Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case

may be , subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

December 07, 2009
sunita