The High Court dismissed a bail petition in a criminal case nearing completion. The court held that extending bail was inexpedient at the stage of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. following examination of prosecution witnesses.
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
Criminal Misc. No.M-30093 of 2010
Date of decision:20.12.2010
Pardeep alias Pintu
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State.
Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
S.S. Saron, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is admitted position between the parties that the prosecution
witnesses in the case have been examined and the case is fixed for recording statement of the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In the circumstances, the case is nearing completion and it would be inexpedient to extend the concession of bail at this stage.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
December 20, 2010.
(S.S. Saron) Judge
hsp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be extended during the recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Pardeep alias Pintu
State of Haryana
S.S. Saron
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
