Allowed

Jasbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009CRM-M/3686/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to the petitioner despite his non-implementation of interim directions due to the judicial officer's leave and specific reasons for non-compliance, noting no useful purpose would be served by remand.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim order dated 10.2.2009 confirmed subject to continuance of appearance before trial court.

Jasbir Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Cr.Misc. NO. M 3686 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr.Misc. NO. M 3686 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 21.5.2009

Jasbir Singh

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

Mohinder Singh and another

¶9

......RESPONDENTS

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. AS Virk, Advocate

¶11

Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate

¶12

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶13

The petitioner was found innocent in a case registered at the instance of Mohinder Singh. When cancellation report was filed, pursuant to a protest petition filed by the complainant, the petitioner had been summoned. The petitioner apprehending arrest pursuant to the acceptance of the protest petition sought pre-arrest bail but he was not able to comply with the interim directions, as such his application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant has appeared to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that when the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner requiring him to appear before the court of Sh. Narinder Sharma, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukehstra on or before 22.11.2008 but on account of the said officer being on leave, the petitioner could not comply with the interim directions. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to

¶17

Cr.Misc. NO. M 3686 of 2009

¶18

¶19

19.1.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate but on the said date, the Presiding Officer did not hold the court,as such the petitioner had moved an application before the Duty Magistrate for compliance of the interim directions but the Duty Magistrate refused to entertain the application of the petitioner on the ground that the interim directions pertained to a specific named presiding officer. I am satisfied that there were sufficient reasons for the petitioner for non compliance of the interim order.

¶20

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already put in appearance before the Illaqa Magistrate pursuant to the interim order passed by this court and that he has now to face the proceedings on the basis of protest petition having been allowed, no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind bars.

¶21

This petition is allowed and interim order dated 10.2.2009 is hereby confirmed subject to the condition that the petitioner will continue to appear before the trial Court and will not absent himself without any sufficient cause.

¶22

May 21 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Jasbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maha Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Memuna Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ram Karan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.