Allowed

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Nov 2011CRM-M/17985/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Perm. Haryana Crl. Misc. No. M-17985 of 2011. The court granted regular bail to petitioners in an encounter trial after 8 months' detention, finding them unconnected to the murder of the complainant's brother and noting injuries were attributed to the co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail bonds/sureties with conditions not to commit similar offences or tamper with evidence.

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-17985 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No.M-17985 of 2011. Date of decision: November 01, 2011.

¶4

Lakhwinder Singh and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana.

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

*** * * Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.**

¶12

Mr.Shalini Attri, DAG. Haryana.

¶13

Mr.Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

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

¶15

Petitioners seek the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Jagga Singh alleging that on 17.03.2011, while he was going to the Court in connection with a criminal case of murder of his brother along with Manjit Singh driver of his Safari with two official gunmen Head Constable Surjit Singh and Head Constable Pala Ram and Sagandeep accompanied by nephew Jasbir Singh and his friend Lakhbir Singh in a separate Zen Car, they were intercepted by Chhotu Bhatt and the petitioners and fired at. The fire shot hit the vehicle of the complainant and the Zen Car. On information given to the police by gunman of the

¶16

. . .1

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-17985 of 2011

¶18

complainant, the police arrived at the spot. So far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were unarmed and have not been attributed any specific overt act. Petitioner No.3, was allegedly present on the spot armed with a Mouser which was not used in the occurrence. The shot fired by co-accused of the petitioner Chhotu Bhatt had allegedly hit the foot of Lakhbir Singh who was admitted in Dabwali Hospital for treatment.

¶19

Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the application for grant of regular bail contending that the brother of complainant had been murdered and that the petitioners and Chhotu Bhatt had attacked the complainant to terrorise the complainant and other persons who were doing Pairvi of the murder case. It has been submitted that Chhotu Bhatt co-accused of the petitioners and the petitioners are members of criminal gang who indulged in criminal activities.

¶20

It has also been submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant will be prevented to appear as a witness in case the petitioners are granted the concession of bail.

¶21

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant. It has been informed that the trial in the murder case of the brother of the complainant is almost over and the case is fixed for arguments. The petitioners are not, in any manner, connected with the said murder case.

¶22

Taking into consideration, the period of 8 months of

¶23

. . .2

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-17985 of 2011

¶25

detention suffered by the petitioners and the part attributed to them, they can be granted the concession of regular bail as the injury, if any, is attributed to the co-accused of the petitioners Chhotu Bhatt.

¶26

The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to an additional condition that the petitioners will not commit the similar offence of which they are accused of and will not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or delay the criminal proceedings in the present case, in any manner. In case of any such eventuality, it will be open to the complainant or the prosecution agency to seek the cancellation of bail.

¶27

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶28

November 01, 2011. rka

¶29

. . .3

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murti Vs State of Haryana

Satnam Singh Alias Satta Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Satta Ram Vs State of Punjab