Allowed

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2010CRM-M/17229/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner who was in judicial custody for another offence, resulting in a delayed surrender. The court held detention served no useful purpose pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regular bail and enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-17229 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-17229 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2010

Inderjit Singh

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. 33567 of 2010

¶15

This is an application for placing on record true typed translated copy of FIR No. 3, dated 10.01.2009. Application is allowed as prayed for. True typed translated copy of FIR No. 3 dated 10.01.2009 is taken on record as Annexure P-5 to the main petition.

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-17229 of 2010

¶17

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 3 dated 10.01.2009 under Sections 308, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib District Ropar.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not appear before the trial court on 28.01.2010 as he was confined in judicial custody in some other case. According to him, the petitioner himself surrendered before the trial court in the instant case on 30.04.2010.

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-17229 of 2010

¶20

¶21

Prayer for bail has been opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He, however, does not dispute the fact that petitioner was in custody in some other case on 28.01.2010. He submits that though he was released on 23.02.2010, he surrendered only on 30.04.2010.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner was in judicial custody in some other case (FIR No. 113 dated 05.08.2007 under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 & 34 IPC at Police Station Morinda) on 28.01.2010 when he could not appear before the trial court. He was enlarged on bail on 23.02.2010 in that case and thereafter, he appeared before the trial court on 30.04.2010. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody during the pendency of the trial. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rupnagar.

¶24

July 09, 2010 Ajay

¶25

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Surender Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suraj Pal Vs State of Punjab

Sarbjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jagbir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Heena and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.