Allowed

Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Oct 2010CRM-M/29543/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition seeking release of the petitioner charged with kidnapping and abduction under the IPC. The investigation was declared complete and the challan presented, leading to the grant of bail subject to judicial magistrate satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail subject to satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate Ludhiana.

Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc.No.M 29543 of 2010

¶2

#1#

¶3

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

¶4

Crl. Misc.No.M 29543 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision:-26.10.2010

¶6

. Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa

¶7

......Petitioner .

¶8

Versus

¶9

. State of Punjab

¶10

. ...... Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

Present:Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab.

¶14

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J(ORAL)

¶16

Prayer is for grant of regular bail under section 439 Cr.PC to the petitioner-Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa in case bearing FIR No.56 dated 12.7.2010 under sections 363, 366-A Indian Penal Code (376 IPC added later on) registered with Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

¶17

It is submitted that petitioner Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa and Sumita, daughter of complainant Tirath Ram, due to their lover affair had performed marriage on 11.7.2010 after elopement and against the wishes of complainant. They approached this court by

¶18

Crl. Misc.No.M 29543 of 2010 #2#

¶19

filing Crl. Misc.No.M 19677 of 2010 seeking protection as they were apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the complainant. This Court vide order dated 19.7.2010(P2) disposed of the said petition in view of the statement of complainant that he shall not cause any harm to the petitioners, i.e. Petitioner Charanjit Singh and Sumita.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that subsequently Sumita had returned to her parental home and complainant Tirath Ram isnow pursuing the FIR lodged prior to 19.7.2010, which fact was not disclosed to this court on 19.7.2010. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.7.2010. It is also submitted that Sumita of her own sweet Will had remained with the petitioner from 7.7.2010 till date of arrest of the petitioner i.e. 20.7.2010.

¶21

Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Hardev Singh submits that investigation is over and challan has been presented in the present case.

¶22

Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, keeping in view the fact that the investigation is over, the petition is allowed and prayer for grant of regular bail is accepted. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate Ludhiana.

¶23

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶24

26^th October, 2010 Vinay

Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh @ Tinku @ Billa 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

Tara Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Bhag Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Sukhwinder Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Brij Mohan Vs Sohan Singh

Birender and Ors. Vs Birham Parkash Yadav and Another

Ram Kalan & Ors. Vs Birham Parkash Yadav and Anr.