Dismissed

Harsimrat Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2010CRM-M/18893/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC in a case involving an alleged attempt to murder with an iron rod. The State opposed the bail, citing a pending duplicate FIR and incomplete proceedings. The court dismissed the petition as it was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the present petition for grant of regular bail.

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

¶1

Crl.Misc. No.M 18893 of 2010 #1#

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH .

¶3

Crl.Misc. No.M 18893 of 2010

¶4

Date of Decision:-13.10.2010

¶5

. Harsimrat Singh

¶6

......Petitioner .

¶7

Versus

¶8

. State of Punjab

¶9

. ...... Respondent

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .

¶11

Present:Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab.

¶13

¶14

JASWANT SINGH, J(ORAL)

¶15

Prayer is for grant of regular bail under section 439 Cr.PC to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.143 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 307, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Banur, District Patiala.

¶16

As per allegations petitioner Harsimrat is alleged to have inflicted iron rod blow on the head and forehead of Arvinder Singh, friend of complainant Lakhvir Singh. The said injury on the head ascribed to Harsimrat Singh is opined to be dangerous to life attracting the provisions of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

#2#

¶18

Crl.Misc. No.M 18893 of 2010

¶19

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Ajit Singh submits that the injured suffered fracture of skull bone and is still undergoing treatment.

¶20

Learned State Counsel further submits that while in custody, another FIR under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner for inflicting injuries on the another undertrial has been registered. He further submits that the challan has been presented and the charge is yet to be framed.

¶21

Learned State Counsel further pointed out that the statement of injured Arvinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.PC has now been recorded and a supplementary challan has been presented on 29.8.2010.

¶22

Learned State Counsel also points out that six of the coaccused are absconding out of which one has been declared innocent.

¶23

After arguing for sometime learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage.

¶24

Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶26

13^th October, 2010 Vinay

Harsimrat Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsimrat Singh 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

Sukhdarshan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Raghvir Vs State of Haryana

Munna Vs State of Haryana

Punjab State Vs Des Raj

Chander Bhan Kaushik Vs State of Punjab

Roshan Vs State of Haryana