Bail petition dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the fact that prosecution evidence was already recorded, alleging no useful purpose in further custody.
Application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10112 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.08.2012
Kuldip Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present : Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S.Bhuller, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 29 dated 01.04.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala, under Sections 302/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.04.2011 and no recovery is to be effected from him and even no useful purpose would be served by keeping him further in custody.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State, after seeking instructions from Sub Inspector Surender Pal, Police Station Sadar Fattu Dhinga, District Kapurthala, submits that during trial, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and even statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded and case is now fixed for recording defence evidence and arguments.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the gravity of the offence as also the fact that statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and case is now fixed for
Crl. Misc. No. M-10112 of 2012
[2]
recording defence evidence and arguments, no ground for bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the application for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner is dismissed.
17.08.2012
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
'ravinder'
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldip Singh
State of Punjab
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
