Allowed

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2012CRM-M/11953/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court made an earlier interim bail order absolute after finding the petitioner had joined investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation, with no allegations of absconding or witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 26.04.2012 granting bail in favour of the petitioner is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-11953 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11953 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2012.

¶5

Sukhjit Singh @Sukha.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.28 dated 28.01.2012, under Sections 382/353/186/341/148/149 IPC, registered at police staiton Kotwali Faridkot.

¶16

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, Faridkot dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

CRM No.M-11953 of 2012

¶18

¶19

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶20

“Crl.M.No.24318 of 2012

¶21

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-11953 of 2012

¶22

Contends that only allegation against petitioner-accused is that he was present at the place of occurrence alongwith coaccused, however, no overt act has been attributed to him and no recovery is to be effected from him.

¶23

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 10.5.2012.

¶24

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.”

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 26.04.2012.

¶26

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of

¶29

CRM No.M-11953 of 2012

¶30

¶31

Sukhjit Singh @Sukha is accepted and order dated 26.04.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶32

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

May 10, 2012. ‘om’

¶34

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha 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

Surjit Singh @ Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bashir Vs State of Haryana

Navdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Moti Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Varun Kumar Vs State of Punjab