Allowed

Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2011CRM-M/19319/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in an assault case, holding that conviction based solely on the uncorroborated statement of an accomplice not declared an approver was debatable, especially after the petitioner joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to joining investigation, not committing similar offences, and not influencing/threatening witnesses.

Hardip Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-19319 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-19319 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: August 19, 2011

Hardip Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

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

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr.T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr.K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

Mr.J.S. Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶16

-.-

¶17

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

¶18

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Yash Pal, driver of Vinod Goel, alleging that Vinod Goel had assaulted by 4/5 persons at the instance of Vimal Rai. Five persons Balwinder Singh, Harjot Singh, Karan Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Parveen are already in judicial custody. The case of the prosecution against

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-19319 of 2011

¶20

[2]

¶21

the petitioner is that Karan Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, in police custody had made a confessional statement to the effect that the petitioner was also amongst the persons who had attacked Vinod Goel.

¶22

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be debatable whether on the basis of statement of an accomplice conviction can be achieved against the petitioner. At this stage, on the basis of uncorroborated statement of the accomplice who seems to have not been declared an approver and no specific part having been attributed to the petitioner; petitioner having already joined investigation; he can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the

¶24

petitioner he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

i) that the petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police;

¶26

ii) that he will not commit the similar offence of which they are accused of during the pendency of the trial; and

¶27

iii) that the petitioner will not, in any manner, make an attempt to influence or threaten the witnesses.

¶28

August 19, 2011 sanjay

Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardip Singh 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

Amit Pal Malhotra Vs State of Punjab

Harkirat Singh Mangat Vs Inderjit Singh

Balwinder Singh @ Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Irshad and Others Vs State of Haryana