A petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed. The High Court held that bail was not warranted as the petitioners failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not disclose accomplices despite previous orders.
Bail was denied, and the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-20115 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: August 24, 2010
Paramjit Singh and others
…..Petitioners
versus
The State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J. : (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners vide FIR No.41 dated 30.4.2010 under sections 452/324/323/148/149 IPC at police station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur.
Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that all the offences alleged in the FIR except offence under section 452 IPC, are bailable.
Learned State counsel (on instructions from HCGurmeet Singh) submits that pursuant to ad interim prearrest bail granted to petitioners by this court, they appeared before the investigating officer, but failed to co-operate. He submits that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioners failed to disclose the names of their accomplices, who were allegedly accompanying them at the time of occurrence.
Crl.Misc.No.M-20115 of 2010
- 2 -
Keeping in view the stand of the investigating agency, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is evident that despite the protective order granted by this court, they are not co-operating with the investigating agency.
Dismissed.
August 24, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail when they failed to cooperate with the investigating agency despite a protective order.
Whether the failure to disclose accomplices despite opportunities justifies denial of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paramjit Singh and others
The State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
