Partly allowed

Multan Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2010CRR/1176/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered a plea for leniency and probation regarding sentences under IPC provisions. The Court granted probation on furnishing bonds instead of immediate imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with modification; petitioners released on probation by furnishing personal bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety for one year.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2003 Date of Decision 18.02.2010

¶3

Multan Singh and another

¶4

...... Petitioners(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶9

Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae and Ms.Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

¶13

The petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 16.05.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 22.05.2002/05.06.2002, passed by Special Railway Magistrate (Haryana) Ambala Cantt., convicting and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 342 IPC.

¶14

Charges against the petitioners are that they assaulted and used criminal force against Constable Shish Pal. They also caused him injuries by beating him with fist blows; forcibly exhibited him at the village chowk of village Uncha Chandna and uttered obscene words to the passing girls and ladies. The petitioners were charged and tried. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced and their appeals were also failed.

¶15

Without assailing the judgment of conviction, counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

¶16

On scrutiny of the records, it transpires that the occurrence took

¶17

Criminal Revision No.1176 of 2003 -2-

¶18

place way back in the year 1995. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of proceedings in the Courts. He has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

¶19

Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence that they are ordered to be released on probation on furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, failing to comply with the terms of bond, they would be ready to serve remaining part of sentence.

¶20

Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for compliance.

¶21

Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, may claim his remuneration as per rules.

¶22

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶23

18.02.2010 mamta-II

Multan Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multan Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Randhir Singh Vs Moman Ram

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs M/S H.S. Chahal and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amit Singla Vs U.T.Chd

Sham Lal Vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab