Partly allowed

Kulwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2010CRM-M/6261/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail petition as withdrawn for petitioner No.1. For petitioner No.2 Maghar Singh, who was in custody since 15.1.2009, the Court held that detaining him served no useful purpose and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed for petitioner No.2 Maghar Singh, who is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur. The petition for petition

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M-6261 of 2010

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: August 27, 2010

¶4

Kulwant Singh and another

…..Petitioners

versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr.G.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner ..

¶11

RAJAN GUPTA, J. : (Oral)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioners vide FIR No.122 dated 14.12.2008 under sections 302/427/120-B/148/149 IPC at police station Dhanaula.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition in respect of petitioner No.1- Kulwant Singh, at this stage.

¶14

Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.1Kulwant Singh.

¶15

As regards petitioner No.2-Maghar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been attributed only a lalkara in the whole occurrence. This apart, petitioner has been in custody since 15.1.2009 and trial may still take some time to conclude, thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody during the pendency of the trial.

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M-6261 of 2010

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He, however, does not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused Binder Singh has been granted the concession of bail by this court vide order dated 22.2.2010(Annexure P-1) passed in Crl. Misc. No.M25376 of 2009.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, period of incarceration undergone by petitioner No.2-Maghar Singh, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any longer. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner No.2-Maghar Singh is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur.

¶20

August 27, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE

¶21

Kulwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh & Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shyam Verma Vs State of Haryana

Pargat Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab & Others

Amrik Singh Vs Ajmer Singh etc.

Tarsem Chand Vs State of Punjab

Devinder Chand Vs State of Punjab