Allowed

Harpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2010CRM-M/17475/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, considering that petitioners had joined the investigation and no allegations existed of absconding or tampering with evidence, accepted the anticipatory bail application and made the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail accepted; order dated 29.06.2010 granting interim bail made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Harpal Singh and Ors. 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- 17475 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2010.

¶3

Harpal Singh and another

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT(s)

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

¶9

Present: Mr. K.K.Goel, 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.18 dated 28.05.2010, under Sections 452/336/323/341/506/148/149 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dharangarh, District Sangrur.

¶14

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

¶15

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 29.06.2010 passed the following order:-

¶16

“Crl.M.No.31206 of 2010

¶17

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

¶19

Crl.M.No.M-17475 of 2010

¶20

Argues that no injury has been attributed to the petitioners and that entire family of petitioner No.1-Harpal Singh has been implicated in this case and that petitioner No.2 is servant of petitioner No.1-Harpal Singh. It is further contended that main accused Nirmal Singh has already been arrested and released on regular bail, whereas other co-accused have been released on anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge.

¶21

Notice of motion for 14.7.2010.

¶22

However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶23

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 29.06.2010.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 Harpal Singh and Harbant Singh, is accepted and order dated 29.06.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

¶29

July 14, 2010. 'om'

¶30

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Harpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh and Ors. 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

Hirdhe Kumar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish @ Jaggi @ Jagganath and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Soni@ Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pala Singh Vs State of Punjab