Allowed

Gurnam Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2009CRM-M/11482/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana admitted the petitioner's explanation regarding his role as a witness and directed that his custody be released to join investigation as required under the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.04.2009 made absolute; petitioner directed to join investigation as required under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Gurnam Singh Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM-M-11482 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM-M-11482 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17.7.2009

Gurnam Singh

The State of Haryana

. . . . Petitioner VS. . . . . Respondent ****

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr.Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State/respondent.

¶13

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that an agreement to sell was entered between a person called Sudhir Pannu and the complainant. Gian Singh and Ashok Kumar were alleged mediator whereas, the present petitioner was the witness of the agreement to sell along with one Rajinder Singh. He further stated that Gian Singh and Ashok Kumar have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court below.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the land is of course owned by Sudhir Pannu but he was impersonated by someone, who is known to Gurnam Singh (petitioner) and has not been arrested so far. He further submits

¶17

CRM-M-11482 of 2009 (O&M)

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

that custody of Gurnam Singh is required for tracing the said imposter.

¶20

As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that so far as Gurnam Singh is concerned, he is at the same pedestal as that of Ravinder Singh, who was also witness to the agreement to sell but he has not been booked in the present case being the son-in-law of the complainant. He submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner had taken money out of the said deal in which Rs.8 lacs is alleged to have been paid by the complainant to the alleged imposter. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 28.4.2009, petitioner has joined the investigation on 2.5.2009.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State/respondent, on instructions received from SI Kartar Singh, admits the fact as stated by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the above, order dated 28.04.2009 is hereby made absolute.

¶23

It is directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

Petition is disposed of.

¶25

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶26

JULY 17, 2009 vivek

Gurnam Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Sumitar Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Vs State of Haryana

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab