Partly allowed

Amit Verma v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2011CRM-M/19345/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of three criminal miscellaneous petitions. One petition for cancellation of bail granted to a co-accused was dismissed. Another seeking anticipatory bail was allowed. A third petition was dismissed directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on service matters within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of bail to co-accused dismissed; anticipatory bail allowed; representation to be decided within four weeks.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011 ::1::

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision : August 25, 2011

¶4

Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011

¶5

Amit Verma vs State of Punjab and another,

¶6

Crl. Misc No. M 20640 of 2011

¶7

Arun Kumar vs State of Punjab

¶8

Crl. Misc No. M 23925 of 2011

¶9

Amit Verma vs State of Punjab and another

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

*******

¶13

Present : Mr. M.K.Dhot, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc Nos. M 19345 & 23925 of 2011

¶14

Mr. Mohd. Yousuf, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc No. M 20640 of 2011

¶15

Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab

¶16

*******

¶17

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶18

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶19

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶20

¶21

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

¶22

This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc Nos. M 19345, 20640 and

¶23

23925 of 2011.

¶24

Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011 is for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P- 1). Crl. Misc No. M 20640 of 2011 is for grant of anticipatory bail to

¶25

Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011 ::2::

¶26

petitioner-Arun Kumar in case FIR No.53, dated 5.5.2011, registered under Sections 458, 323, 427, 148, 149 of the IPC, at Police Station City-II, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Crl. Misc No. M 23925 of 2011 is for cancellation of bail granted to Kuldeep Singh by this Court in the aforesaid FIR.

¶27

The co-accused Kuldeep Singh was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 31.5.2011, a relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶28

“ On 24.5.2011, the following contention was noticed :-

¶29

`Learned counsel has argued that the only Section which is non-bailable is Section 458 IPC and the petitioner who is a Government Servant was on duty.'

¶30

Apart from that learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case earlier injuries were caused to the son of the petitioner and another person from their party.

¶31

On instructions from SI Jaspal Singh learned Deputy Advocate General has stated that the cross case has been registered. Learned DAG has also not denied the authenticity of Annexure P-3(Attendance Register).

¶32

Learned counsel for the complainant has however argued that present is a case where the petitioner has entered the house of the complainant and even attacked the old mother of the complainant.

¶33

In my considered opinion, it is clear that it is a case where both the parties have inflicted injuries on each other.

¶34

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶36

In view of the above, I find no reason to cancel the bail granted

¶37

to Kuldeep Singh. Consequently, Crl. Misc No. M 23925 of 2011 is dismissed.

¶38

Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011 ::3::

¶39

On 12.7.2011, the following contentions were noticed in Crl.

¶40

Misc No. M 20640 of 2011 :-

¶41

“ Contends that petitioner himself suffered 12 injuries in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel has referred to MLR (Annexure P-1). He further submits that a co-accused has been granted concession of pre-arrest bail vide order dated 31.5.2011 in Crl. Misc No. M 16087 of 2011 (Annexure P-3). He submits that petitioner shall render full cooperation to the investigating agency.”

¶42

Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from ASI Gurmeet

¶43

Singh, has accepted the factual assertions.

¶44

In the circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to confirm the order dated 12.7.2011. So ordered. Crl. Misc No. M 20620 of 2011 stands disposed of.

¶45

As regards Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011, In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), in accordance with law, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Crl. Misc No. M 19345 of 2011 stands disposed of.

¶46

( AJAY TEWARI ) August 25, 2011. JUDGE `kk'

Amit Verma v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Verma v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Sunil Kumar @ Soni Vs State of Punjab

Mehtab Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Basanti @ Moga Vs State of Haryana

Hakam Vs State of Haryana

Vikash Manchanda Vs State of Haryana