Allowed

Randhir Singh @ Bau and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2010CRM-M/17323/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined an anticipatory bail petition filed by Randhir Singh. The court formalized an interim order from June 11, 2010, making the bail absolute as the petitioners had joined the investigation and were not required for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The impost bail application accepted and the interim order dated 11.06.2010 is made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Randhir Singh @ Bau and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 17323 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2010.

¶3

Randhir Singh @Bau and another.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab.

...... RESPONDENT(s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.51 dated 01.04.2010, under Sections 307/323/324/325/326/336/148/149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.

¶14

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

¶15

A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 11.06.2010 passed the following order:-

¶16

¶17

CRM No.M-17323 of 2010

¶18

“Says that the present FIR is a counter-blast to the injuries caused by the complainant to Bikramjit Singh, who is 16 years old.

¶19

Notice of motion for 20.07.2010.

¶20

In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. They will join the investigation as and when required.”

¶21

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 11.06.2010.

¶22

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶23

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶24

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Randhir Singh @Bau and Dilbagh Singh, is accepted and order dated 11.06.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶27

July 20, 2010. 'om'

Randhir Singh @ Bau and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Singh @ Bau and Anr. v. State of Punjab

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

Ridamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Panjab University, Chd. and Ors.

Rai Singh Vs Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.

Dilbagh @ Darbara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Manoj Dubey Vs State of Haryana

Jasmero Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana