Allowed

Shivnesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2011CRM-M/20593/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Shivnesh Kumar and Surjit Singh. The court noted they were not named in the FIR, were minors at the time of the incident, and no attempt was made to arrest them initially despite available information. Petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer; if arrested, to be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Shivnesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc No. M 20593 OF 2011

¶2

Shivnesh Kumar vs State of Punjab

¶3

Crl. Misc No. M 21955 OF 2011

¶4

Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

¶5

¶6

Present : Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc No. M 20593 of 2011.

¶7

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc No. M 21955 of 2011.

¶8

Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab

¶9

¶10

This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M 20593 and 21955 of 2011, as both these petitions arise from the same FIR.

¶11

The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.267, dated 18.7.2010, registered under Sections 379/420 of the IPC, at Police Station Tripri Town, District Patiala.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR and that they are being sought to be implicated only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

¶13

Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from ASI Darshan Singh, has accepted this fact.

¶14

This Court also finds that the main accused Kuldeepak Sharma was released on regular bail on 23.9.2010. As per counsel for the respondent, the first time warrants of arrest of the petitioners were obtained was in January 2011. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why no attempts were made to apprehend and interrogate the petitioners, if there was any credible information which may have surfaced against them. It is

¶15

Crl.Misc No. M 20593 of 2011 : 2 :

¶16

also not disputed that on the date of occurrence, petitioner-Shivnesh Kumar was minor. The fact that another case has been registered against him would not dis-entitle him from the grant of concession of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances mentioned above.

¶17

In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 25.8.2011 or on any subsequent date/s on which the Investigating Officer so requires, and in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

Petitions stand disposed of.

¶19

( AJAY TEWARI ) August 17, 2011. JUDGE `kk'

Shivnesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnesh Kumar 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

Ramesh Chand & Anr,. Vs State of Haryana

Geeta Mahant Vs State of Punjab

Rajveer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Inderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shilpa Vs State of Punjab

Aman Kumar @ Billa Vs State of Punjab