In a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, the Court made the interim bailable order absolute after the State counsel affirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was not required for custodial interrogation.
Interim order dated 28.04.2010 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
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. Misc. No. M-12118 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12118 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.8.2010
Surjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC at Police Station City Dhuri, District Sangrur, vide FIR No.61 dated 11th April, 2010.
Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Satnam Singh, who is present in Court) submits that pursuant to order dated 28.04.2010, petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 28.04.2010 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
25.8.2010 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be made absolute after the accused joins the investigation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Surjit Singh
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
