Allowed

Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2010CRM-M/16299/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The case involved a dispute over crop compensation on partitioned land, where allegations suggested the crop was harvested before compensation deposit.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail to the petitioners; direction to join investigation and observe conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. on arrest.

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-16299 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-16299 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 6, 2010

¶5

Surjit Singh and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.85, dated 20.4.2010, registered under Sections 379, 447, 511, 506, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Khanna, Police District Khanna.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶17

Admitted facts are that there was a joint land of the parties which was partitioned. In the certain portion of the said land which fell to the share of the complainant, crop belonging to accused party was standing. Revenue officials passed orders that compensation worth Rs.37,060/- be paid/deposited by the complainant in the name of petitioners on 4.11.2009. The plea of present petitioners is that the said compensation was not deposited by the complainant and hence, the crop which was sown by the petitioners, harvested by them with the consent of the complainant. A perusal of challan, Annexure P3 shows that the same was filled up by the complainant on 16.4.2010 and the amount was deposited on 20.4.2010, whereas as per the allegations the crop was cut by the present petitioners on

¶18

-2-

¶19

Crl.M.No.M-16299 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

18.4.2010, i.e., before depositing the amount in the treasury by the complainant. It was erroneously contended on behalf of the State that amount was deposited in the Treasury on 2.4.2010.

¶21

Hence in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionersSurjit Singh, Gurmail Singh, Jagga Singh and Nazar Singh for grant of anticipatory is allowed. They are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

meenu

¶24

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶25

6.7.2010

Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Brijender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

S.S.Sandhu Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chandigarh Polytechnic Teachers Asso. Vs U T Chd

Jagdev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky Vs State of Punjab