Bail granted to the Petitioner accused under section 302 IPC and Section 25,54,59 of the arms act: High court of Punjab and Haryana

The petitioner was filed under FIR no.353 on the 12th of October 2020, as he was accused under sections 302 IPC i.e. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life”, section 34 IPC, “Acts have done by several persons in furtherance of common intention generally a criminal act”, section 392 IPC” Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment ”and 394 IPC “Voluntarily causing hurt in committing the robbery” and section 120-B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy” and also under section 25 of the arms act i.e. “manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms”.

Section 54 of the arms act Renewal of licenses. “Every license may, at its expiration and subject to the same condition (if any) as to the grant thereof, be renewed by the authority mentioned by the law”, section 59 of the arms act, “Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition”.

Therefore, A petition was filed as the petitioner was seeking bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. which grants Special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 19 of July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh in the case of Ravinder v/s state of Haryana CRM-M-24007 of 2021, Ms. Geeta Singhwal represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Munish Sharma represented for the state. The proceedings of the court were held via video conferencing due to the covid-19 pandemic

The following are the facts of the case, three boys illegally trespassed and entered the shop of the complainant and shot the brother of the complainant after looting some money. The petitioner was accused of being one of the boys, but the counsel for the petitioner (Ms. Geetha ) stated before the court that the name of the petitioner was not given in the FIR and was not stated to be one of the three boys who committed the crime. The petitioner has been in custody since October 2020 and the trial has not yet commenced.

The counsel for the state of Haryana  after investigation and upon query submitted that the petitioner was named in a disclosure statement which was made by the co-accused stating that the petitioner was one of the conspirators in the crime scene and the counsel for the state objected and stated before the court that the petitioner doesn’t  deserve to be admitted on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. however he does not deny the allegation against the petitioner and the offense should be made punishable under section 120-B IPC

The court finally held that “That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.”

Click here to read the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat