Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)

CRM-M-36908 of 2020 | 26-10-2021

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J

1. Ld. State Counsel, on instructions from ASI Jaipal Singh, submits that while the petitioner has joined investigation in terms of the previous orders, he is not cooperative in the sense that recovery of the gold chain allegedly snatched from the complainant could not be effected.

2. From his side, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the fact that the dispute/controversy and old enmity between the two groups of persons belonging to the third gender has been going on for a very long time of almost 12 years since 08.11.2009, as already noted in the previous order dated 10.11.2020. He, therefore, submits that the story of alleged snatching of gold is simply a trumped one in order to cause harassment to the petitioner when the dispute between the concerned groups has been ongoing on much more serious counts for a very long time.

3. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner at this stage would not be required any further.

4. For this reason, the interim bail granted to the petitioner earlier on 10.11.2020 is, hereby, confirmed.

5. Disposed off.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Prashant Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

  • Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Eq Citations
  • LQ/PunjHC/2021/15604
Head Note

Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 7(1) r/w S. 439 CrPC — Interim bail confirmed — Dispute/controversy and old enmity between two groups of persons belonging to third gender has been going on for a very long time of almost 12 years — Story of alleged snatching of gold is simply a trumped one in order to cause harassment to petitioner when dispute between concerned groups has been ongoing on much more serious counts for a very long time — Custodial interrogation of petitioner at this stage not required any further — Interim bail granted to petitioner earlier confirmed