Allowed

Satpal and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2011CRM-M/17957/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral disposal of a Section 439 Cr.P.C. petition seeking regular bail, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail on satisfaction of the trial court, noting that while delays in trial were admitted by prosecution, issuance of time-bound directions was not feasible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on regular bail to satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Satpal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM-M No.17957 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.17957 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2011

Satpal and another

...... Petitioners

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

*******

¶13

Present : Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶15

Mr. Gaurave Bhaiyya, Advocate for the complainant.

¶16

*******

¶17

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

¶18

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No.114 dated 06.06.2010 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur.

¶19

On 04.07.2011 the following contention was noticed:-

¶20

“Learned counsel has argued that the petitioners have been in custody for the last almost four months and neither were they named in the FIR nor any action attributed to them.”

¶21

::2::

¶22

CRM-M No.17957 of 2011(O&M)

¶23

Apart from that learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that 15 witnesses still remain to be examined. He has also argued that substantive witnesses has given their testimonies and only the formal witnesses are left.

¶24

On instructions from H.C. Kuldip Singh learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant have accepted these factual assertions though learned counsel for the complainant has argued that present would be a case where it would be more appropriate to issue a time bound direction.

¶25

In my opinion, this may not be possible since as mentioned above 15 witnesses still remain to be examined.

¶26

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

( AJAY TEWARI ) October 13, 2011 JUDGE

¶30

ashish

Satpal and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal and 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Malhotra @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Sandip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Chand Vs Balbir Singh & Ors.

Harpartap Singh @ Bittu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Nirmala etc. Vs State of Haryana