Allowed

Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CRM-M/32626/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the High Court directed the competent authority to decide a premature release plea as per Supreme Court guidelines. Due to prolonged non-compliance by the authority, the Court allowed the petition and granted interim release of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted interim release forthwith upon furnishing adequate surety. Competent authority directed to pass order on premature release plea within one month.

Bhim Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-32626 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-32626 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.12.2008

Bhim Singh

. ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

¶12

Present: Mr.H.P.S.Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On the asking of the Court of the Court, Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶16

The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. 3138-M of 2008 for issuance of a direction to the competent authority to consider his premature release case in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mahender Singh's case. That petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Augustine George Masih, J.) vide order dated 6.8.2008 by passing the following order:-

¶17

“Counsel for the state submits that the meeting of the high level committee is fixed for today for reconsideration of the case of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a decision will to be taken very soon. He further submits that

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-32626 of 2008

¶19

-2-

¶20

********

¶21

the case of the petitioner would be considered in the light of the decision taken by the Committee today and orders be conveyed to the petitioner before 02.09.2008. It would not be out of way to mention here that the counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mahender Singh and others reported as AIR 2007 SCW 6988.

¶22

This petition is disposed of in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the State and with further direction that the State will take into consideration the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of the petitioner.

¶23

The decision on the case of the petitioner be conveyed to the petitioner on or before 02.09.2008, as undertaken by the counsel for the State.”

¶24

The order was not complied with. The petitioner was thereby impelled to file Criminal Misc. No. M-29004 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2008 by passing the following order:-

¶25

“In terms of order dated 06.08.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.G.Masih, J.), the respondents had been directed to consider the premature release plea of the petitioner – prisoner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh and others 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 909.

¶26

While fairly conceding that the State Level Committee did not comply with the order, the learned State counsel states that the needful would presently be done if a week's time is

¶27

Criminal Misc. No.M-32626 of 2008

-3-

********

granted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the adoption of that course.

¶32

In the light thereof, the petition shall stand disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to pass an order afresh on the premature release plea of the petitioner – prisoner, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh and others 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 909. The exercise shall be concluded positively within 7 days from today. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the Competent Authority.

¶33

Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under the signatures of the Court Secretary.”

¶34

Inspite thereof, the competent authority has not complied with the orders of this Court till date.

¶35

The learned State counsel is not in a position to explain the non-compliance thereof.

¶36

Needless to indicate, each order passed by a Judicial Authority has to be faithfully complied with by every public authority.

¶37

The petition shall stand allowed. The competent authority is directed to pass an order on the premature release plea of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-29004 of 2008 (Annexure P-1) within one month from today.

¶38

However, in view of the fact that release of the petitioner has been delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority and for not fault of the petitioner in any case, it is ordered that petitioner shall be released forthwith, as an interim measure. The release

¶39

Criminal Misc. No.M-32626 of 2008

¶40

-4-

¶41

********

¶42

shall be subject to his furnishing of adequate surety etc. undertaking the return to the law subject to ultimate decision in the matter. It will be for the State counsel to communicate the order to the competent authority.

¶43

Copy of the order be given to the learned State counsel under

¶44

the signatures of the Court Secretary.

¶45

December 11, 2008 Pka

¶46

(S.D. ANAND) JUDGE

Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs Pb.St.

Vir Chand Goyal Vs Sr. Supdt. of Police, Kapurthala

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Naresh Chand Vs State of Haryana

Harchand Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Naresh Vs State of Haryana