BA1/315/2014 of Mustkeem Vs State Of Uttarakhand
Parties
- Shaista Parveen sustained injuries in the form of (PETITIONER)
- Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) andalso inGian Singh vs. State . of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 2 detected)
2 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALOriginal Jurisdiction
Dated: Nainital: the 25[th] day of March, 2014 Ist Bail Application No. 315 of 2014
Order on the Bail Application:
CRIMINAL SIDE Mustkeem …… Applicant VersusState of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out of crime No. 171 / 2013 Under Sections:323, 324, 325, 506, 307 IPC Police Station: Kotwali Manglaur District: Haridwar.
Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Pal, AGA for the respondent State.
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Applicant Mustkeem, who is in jail in connection with case crime no. 171 of 2013, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506, 307 of IPC, relating to Police Station, Kotwali, Manglaur, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application.
Shaista Parveen sustained injuries in the form of
contusions, abraded contusion, contused swelling and abrasion in different parts of her body. The Medical Officer opined that the injuries were fresh in duration, which were caused by hard and blunt object, except injury nos. 8 and 9, which were caused by sharp object. X-ray of
skull was advised. Fracture on parietal bone was found. But learned counsel for the complainant has entered appearance and says that Shaista Parveen has compounded the offences against the accused by way of out of court settlement. It may be noted here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted compounding under Section 307 of IPC in Dimpey Gujral vs Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) andalso inGian Singh vs. State . of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160
The applicant is entitled to bail in the aforesaid circumstances.
The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two local reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
( U.C. Dhyani, J. )
Dt. March 25, 2014. Negi