Petitioner sought regular bail in an IPC case involving abduction and kidnapping for marriage. The bench allowed bail noting the charge was unfixed, no flight risk existed, and Supreme Court proceedings were pending.
Regular bail allowed to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Patiala.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.No.M-11952 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-11952 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2010
Gurpag Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.235, dated 22.10.2009, under Sections 363, 366A IPC, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had contracted marriage with Amninder Kaur and that a petition bearing Crl.M.No.M-29790 of 2009 was also filed in this Court for providing protection and however, the same was dismissed. Further contends that petitioner already filed a Special Leave Petition against the said judgment before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is pending. It is further contended that while issuing notice of motion, Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the arrest of the petitioner, vide Anenxure P2. It is further contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 14.1.2010 and even charge has not been framed so far and hence the case is not likely to be decided in near future.
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-11952 of 2010 (O&M)
It has been stated by learned State counsel that the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is dated 22.3.2010, whereas the petitioner was already arrested in this case. However, the fact that even charge has not been framed so far in this case, has been admitted.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Gurpag Singh for grant of regular bail is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Patiala.
21.7.2010 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Whether the pendency of Supreme Court proceedings affects the grant of bail
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurpag Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
