Allowed

Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/11315/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two cross petitions for anticipatory bail filed by Vikramjit Singh and Arvinderpal Singh. The petitions were based on an FIR under sections 452, 323, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court activated interim pending bail orders and made them absolute since the petitioners had joined the investigation, and there was no risk of absconding.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail orders dated 24.04.2012 and 30.04.2012 were made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Vikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(1)

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-11315 of 201(O&M) Date of Decision: May 08, 2012.

¶4

Vikramjit Singh @ Chhinda

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶9

(2)

¶10

Crl. Misc. No.M-12075 of 2012(O&M)

¶11

Arvinderpal Singh @ Hobby

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶16

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶17

Present: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for for the petitioner (s).

¶18

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

¶19

¶20

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶21

This order will dispose of both the afore-mentioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in cross-case in FIR No.30 dated 21.04.2011 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

¶22

CRM No.M-11315 of 2012

¶23

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶25

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No.M11315 of 2012 passed the following order on 24.04.2012:-

¶26

“Crl.M.No.23073 of 2012

¶27

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-11315 of 2012

¶28

Contends that petitioner is an accused in crosscase, which was registered after 20 days of the occurrence and that allegation is only of fist blow without any medical evidence. It is also submitted that all the offences except offence under Section 452 IPC are bailable one.

¶29

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for

¶30

8.5.2012.

¶31

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶32

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl. Misc. No.M12075 of 2012 passed the following order on 30.04.2012:-

¶33

“Crl.M.No.24562 of 2012

¶34

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-12075 of 2012

¶35

Contends that petitioner is an accused in crosscase, which was registered after about 20 days of the occurrence and that allegation is only causing simple injury, i.e.,

¶36

CRM No.M-11315 of 2012

¶37

¶38

slapping without any medical evidence. It is also submitted that all the offences except offence under Section 452 IPC are bailable one. It is contended that case of present petitioner is similar to co-accused Vikramjit Singh, who has already been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-11315 of 2012.

¶39

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 8.5.2012.

¶40

¶41

To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-11315 of 2012.”

¶42

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 24.04.2012 and 30.04.2012 respectively.

¶43

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶44

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶45

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the afore-mentioned anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of petitioners Vikramjit Singh and Arvinderpal

¶46

CRM No.M-11315 of 2012

¶47

¶48

Singh @ Hobby are accepted and orders dated 24.04.2012 and 30.04.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶49

Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶50

May 08, 2012. Sachin M.

¶51

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikramjit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chameli and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chaman Lal Vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Haryana

Nazar Mohd. Vs State of Haryana