Allowed

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2012CRM-M/12584/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, who was facing charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court noted that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail and found the petitioner not required to remain in custody pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds satisfactory to the trial court.

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-12584 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-12584 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision:03.07.2012

¶6

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju ......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶12

Mr.P.S.Punia, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioner Lakhbir Singh @ Raju son of Mukand Singh has applied for regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Harpal Singh @ Bhura Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, by way of FIR No.70 dated 21.07.2011, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 IPC by the police of Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Concisely, the prosecution case is that on 20.07.2011, complainant Shamsher Singh son of Randhir Singh was going to his fields on cycle. As soon as at about 6.45 PM, he reached at the tubewell of Sukhdev Singh son of Gurdial Singh, in the meantime, his paternal uncle Gurdial Singh was having altercation with Harpal Singh @ Bhura Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and petitioner-Lakhbir Singh @ Raju. They grappled with Gurdial Singh and laid him on the ground. According to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co-accused Harpal

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-12584 of 2012 2

¶18

Singh @ Bhura Singh gave fist blows to him(Gurdial Singh) while lying on the ground. He was saved by the complainant and Nirbhay Singh from the clutches of the accused. Gurdial Singh complained of chest pain and was removed to Sadbhawana hospital, Patiala, where the doctor declared him dead.

¶19

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other coaccused Harpal Singh @ Bhura Singh committed a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the background of these allegations, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner described hereinabove.

¶20

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in this respect.

¶22

As is evident from the record that, the petitioner and his other coaccused Harpal Singh @ Bhura Singh were empty handed. They have some altercation with Gurdial Singh. According to the prosecution, they gave only fist blows to Gurdial Singh. It is not a matter of dispute that Harpal Singh @ Bhura Singh, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.), by means of order dated 10.02.2012 vide CRM No.M-39117 of 2011(Annexure P-1). Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same concession of regular bail to the present petitioner in the similar set of circumstances.

¶23

Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2011 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be detained in jail for any other purpose. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. The conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time. So, taking

¶24

¶25

Criminal Misc.No.M-12584 of 2012

¶26

into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶27

July 03, 2012 seema

¶28

( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) JUDGE

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhbir Singh @ Raju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Adn Ors.

Dilpreet Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurmeet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajbir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Faqir Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jatinderpal Vs Amanpreet Kaur & Anr.