Allowed

Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2009CRM-M/10400/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considered a bail petition filed by Joginder Singh accused under Sections 302, 323 and 34 IPC. The court allowed the bail petition by considering the petitioner's role and the extended period of custody without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-10400 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10400 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision : July 01, 2009

¶6

Joginder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶8

¶9

Present : Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. N. S. Sodhi, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶14

Joginder Singh has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 163 dated 19.07.2008, under Sections 302, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhullath, District Kapurthala.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶16

case file.

¶17

According to prosecution version, the petitioner armed with axe, his son Taranjit Singh armed with dagger , petitioner's wife Manjit Kaur and one Baljit Kaur both empty-handed, raised lalkara. Both the ladies

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-10400 of 2009

¶19

¶20

caught hold of Santokh Singh (since deceased), whereas the petitioner and his son started hitting Santokh Singh with their respective weapons. Complainant Tarlok Singh (brother of Santokh Singh) and his maternal uncle Mohinder Singh intervened. The petitioner inflicted axe blow on the forehead of the complainant causing only simple injury. The petitioner also exhorted his son Taranjit Singh to finish Santokh Singh. Thereupon, Taranjit Singh inflicted two blows with dagger on chest and right flank of Santokh Singh, who resultantly died in hospital.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2008 i.e. for the last more than 11 months. It is also contended that only two injuries with dagger blows attributed to the petitioner's son were found on the deceased and no injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to the deceased was found on his body. It is also submitted that only simple hurt is stated to have been caused by the petitioner to the complainant.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the petitioner, instead of preventing his son from killing Santokh Singh, rather exhorted him to do so.

¶23

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner and the period of custody already undergone by him, the instant bail petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶24

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶25

July 01, 2009

¶26

monika

Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder 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

Harbans Singh Vs Ravinder Kaur

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Subhash and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Ram Kishore and Another Vs State of Haryana