Allowed

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2006CRM/21874/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court made the interim order absolute. The petitioner, an elderly individual facing tree-cutting charges, had joined the investigation as required by a prior order. The bail remains effective until the charge-sheet is filed.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated April 18, 2006, made absolute; bail remains valid until filing of the charge-sheet.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRL.MISC.NO.21874-M OF 2006

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 8, 2006

Pritam Singh

....PETITITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab

....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Petitioner Pritam Singh apprehending his arrest in a nonbailable offence in case FIR No.49/2006 dated 11.3.2006 registered under Sections 379/447 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, Distt.Gurdaspur, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR.

¶13

This order be read in continuation of the earlier order dated April 18, 2006 passed by this Court.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is 65 years old and has undergone by-pass surgery from the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. The allegation against him is that he has illegally cut the trees.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has joined the investigation. This fact has not been disputed by the State counsel.

¶16

In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the interim order dated April 18, 2006 is made absolute subject to the condition that as and when the petitioner will be called for investigation, he will join the same.

¶17

Crl.Misc.No.21874-M of 2006

¶18

-2-

¶19

This bail order shall remain in operation till the investigation culminates into filing of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. except for material change in the circumstances. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to the grant of regular bail by the trial Court and the same shall further continue till conclusion of the trial on the conditions to be imposed by the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶20

Disposed of accordingly.

¶21

September 8, 2006 vkg

¶22

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Confederation of Indian Industry (Cii) & Vs State of U.T. and Ors.

Ranjit Singh @ Rana Vs State of Punjab

Savitri Devi and Other Vs State of Haryana and Others

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Lal Shroff Vs Rameshwar Dass

Balbir Singh and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Anr.