Allowed

Baljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2011CRM-M/12612/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-bench High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners accused of assaulting the Sarpanch. Noting a one-year delay in FIR registration and simple assault charges without prior pending litigation, the court released them subject to investigation and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to investigation participation, no tampering with evidence or further assault.

Baljit Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl.Misc. No.M-12612 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Misc. No.M-12612 of 2011. Date of decision: September 15, 2011.

¶4

Baljit Singh and others.

.. Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab.

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶14

Mr.Jonny Goel, Advocate, Mr.Amaninder Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

¶15

¶16

M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL)

¶17

Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted lady Sarpanch Mandeep Kaur on 30.04.2010. The FIR was registered after a period of more than one year i.e., on 05.04.2011, alleging that the petitioners have not only assaulted the complainant but had also damaged the record of the Panchayat.

¶18

Counsel for the complainant have intervened to oppose the application for pre-arrest bail bringing it to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have again committed the offence of assault causing grievous injury to the complainant and the

¶19

...1

¶20

Crl.Misc. No.M-12612 of 2011

¶21

application filed for pre-arrest bail has been dismissed by the Sessions Court in FIR No.54 of 08.07.2011.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as a matter of fact a cross-version has been registered at the instance of petitioner Gurmel Singh as petitioner No.2 Sukhmander Singh has received injuries in the FIR referred to by the complainant. Since the petitioners as well as the complainant had subsequently indulged in assaulting each other, this petition has been taken up for consideration on merits for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners independently.

¶23

I have considered the part attributed to each of the petitioners. The only allegation against petitioner No.1, is that he had pushed the complainant and interfered in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat.

¶24

Taking into consideration the fact that only simple assault has been alleged against petitioner No.1, and there is a delay of one year in registration of the FIR, the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in view of the fact that they have already joined investigation. This order has been passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners or the complainant in the subsequent criminal litigation pending inter se between the parties.

¶25

This petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

¶26

...2

¶27

Crl.Misc. No.M-12612 of 2011

¶28

subject to the following conditions: -

¶29

(i) That the petitioners will join the investigation

¶30

as and when required by the police;

¶31

(ii) That the petitioners will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner;

¶32

(iii) That the petitioners will not commit the similar offence of which they are accused of i.e., they will not commit any assault on the complainant or any of her associates during the pendency of the trial especially w.e.f., today.

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above said conditions, it will be open to the complainant or the Investigating Agency to seek the cancellation of the bail.

¶34

This order will remain operative till presentation of challan. The petitioners would be required to furnish fresh bail bonds in case the prosecution agency opts to present challan against the petitioners.

¶35

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of of any of the parties in the FIRs by the petitioners or against the petitioners.

¶36

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶37

September 15, 2011. rka

¶38

...3

Baljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjit Singh @ Sonu Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Shamshu and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Rajwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prem Chand Gupta Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab