CRM-M-32911 of 2011 - 1 - CRM-M-32940 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-32911 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.12.2011 Yogesh @ Handa . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-32940 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.12.2011 Jagdish . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Jai Veer Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-32911 of 2011 titled as “Yogesh @ Handa Vs. State of Haryana” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ist petition’) and CRM-M-32940 of 2011 titled as “Jagdish Vs. State of Haryana” (hereinafter referred to as ‘IInd petition’) in which the petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.43 dated 10.02.2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 324 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Model Town, Rewari. The petitioner in the Ist petition was arrested on 24.2.2011 whereas the petitioner in the IInd petition was arrested on 11.2.2011. CRM-M-32911 of 2011 - 2 - CRM-M-32940 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the case is at the stage of recording of the evidence of the prosecution and as of now prosecution has examined 9 out of 34 witnesses. He has further submitted that the petitioner in the Ist petition is alleged to have caught hold of the shoulder of the injured Jitender whereas petitioner in the IInd petition is alleged to have caused knife injury to Jitender which has been found to be an offence committed under Section 324 of the IPC. He further relies upon an order passed by this Court in CRM-M-27446 of 2011 titled as Preetpal @ Banti Vs. State of Haryana against whom the allegation was that he had also caused knife blow to Birender and was booked under section 324 IPC. It is also alleged that injured Birender and the complainant Jitender had already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the petitioner in the Ist petition and the petitioner in the IInd petition are neither the previous convicts nor any other case(s) is/are pending against them. It is an admitted case that the petitioners in both the petitions did not cause any injury to the deceased as the said injury is attributed to Shankar and Parmod. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without observing anything on the merits, the Ist petition (CRM-M-32911 of 2011 titled as “Yogesh @ Handa Vs. State of Haryana) and the IInd petition (and CRM-M-32940 of 2011 titled as “Jagdish Vs. State of Haryana) are hereby allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 15, 2011 JUDGE Vivek