CRM-M-35476 of 2011 - 1 - CRM-M-36874 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** 1. CRM-M-35476 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.12.2011 Vijay Singh . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** 2. CRM-M-36874 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.12.2011 Rohtash . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-35476 of 2011 titled as “Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana” (for short ‘Ist petition’) and CRM-M-36874 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana” (for short ‘IInd petition’) in which petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.70 dated 29.3.2011 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 326, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Raina, District Sirsa. CRM-M-35476 of 2011 - 2 - CRM-M-36874 of 2011 In respect of the petitioner in the Ist petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that injury attributed to him is on the elbow of the complainant which is found to be simple in nature. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 1.5.2011. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, the Ist petition (CRM-M-35476 of 2011 titled as “Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana”) is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. In respect of the petitioner in the IInd petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an allegation against him of causing injury below shoulder which has been found to be grievous in nature attracting the provisions of Section 326 IPC. He submits that he is in custody since 13.6.2011 and is admittedly a juvenile. He has also submitted in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the petitioner deserves concession of bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, the IInd petition (CRM-M-36874 of 2011 titled as “Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana”) is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. A copy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 23, 2011 JUDGE Vivek