A petition for regular bail was filed by an elderly accused challenging his custody. The court dismissed the application, noting the petitioner's history of absconding and being declared a proclaimed offender, finding no ground for bail grants.
Petition for regular bail dismissed; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 14667 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.7.2010
Amar Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 30.6.1999, under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old man aged 75 years and is now in custody for the last more than 6 ½ months.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had absented during trial and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial against the co-accused of the
Criminal Misc. No.M- 14667 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
petitioner, who was none other than his son, was concluded and resulted in his conviction. Learned State counsel has further submitted that five witnesses out of ten witnesses have since been examined.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal.
A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the petitioner had earlier absented before the trial Court on 30.11.2006 and was arrested on 21.1.2008. The petitioner was allowed bail on 9.2.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner again absented on 28.4.2008 and was declared a proclaimed offender. The co-accused of the petitioner, who had faced the trial, had been convicted by the trial Court on 16.11.2009. In these circumstances, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is habitual in jumping bail, is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial
expeditiously.
(SABINA) JUDGE
July 12, 2010 anita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who has a history of absconding and jumping bail conditions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amar Singh
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
