Allowed

Preet Singh @ Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2012CRM-M/11707/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting bail to the petitioner in an FIR involving Sections 363, 366-A, 376, and 506 IPC, noting that the alleged victim is major and residing separately, without adjudging merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

Preet Singh @ Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-11707 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-11707 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: July 02 , 2012

¶5

Preet Singh @ Harpreet Singh

….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab

¶13

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.(ORAL)

¶15

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.311 dated 17.12.2010 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had married complainant Ramandeep Kaur who is allegedly stated to be minor at that time and the FIR has been recorded on the statement of father of the girl. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record statement of PW-1 Ramandeep Kaur, who has not supported the prosecution version rather she has stated that she was born on 04.03.1992 and is major, and presently residing in Nari Niketan, Amritsar.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-11707 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

This fact has not been denied by learned State Counsel. On instructions from SI Mukhtiar Singh, learned State counsel has affirmed the fact that Ramandeep Kaur is residing in Nari Niketan, Amritsar.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Ramandeep Kaur has not been come out of Nari Niketan for the reason that petitioner is in custody.

¶21

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶22

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the facts stated above, petitioner can be granted concession of bail. The present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. Petitioner is directed that he will not interfere with the prosecution evidence.

¶23

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶24

02.07.2012 vcgarg

Preet Singh @ Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preet Singh @ Harpreet 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

Major Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Ramanjot Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Vikrant Kumar @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana

Anil Vs State of Haryana