Allowed

Vippan Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2012CRM-M/13732/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C., allowed a bail application. The petitioner was charged with offences including kidnapping, but no specific act was attributed to him as he was an accomplice to the main accused who alone committed the attempt.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds.

Vippan Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-13732 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-13732 of 2012 Date of decision : July 11, 2012

Vippan Kumar

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present : Nemo for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab

¶13

********

¶14

M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)

¶15

Petitioner-Vippan Kumar son of Gian Chand, has directed the instant application for regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other main accused Ravi Kumar @ Thandi, Sukhjeevan Singh and Gurjit Singh vide FIR No.270 dated 03.12.2011 on accusation of having committed offence punishable under Sections 452, 365, 366, 511, 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Nakodar District, Jalandhar Rural, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C..

¶16

Concisely, the prosecution case is that Ravi Kumar @ Thandi, main co-accused of the petitioner entered into the house of complainant Kamla Devi and tried to kidnapped her daughter Kulwinder Kaur but failed. The prosecution claimed that Vippan Kumar also accompanied main accused Ravi Kumar @

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-13732 of 2012 -2-

¶18

Thandi and was present at the spot. In the background of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Kamla Devi, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶19

Notice of the application was issued to the State.

¶20

Having perused the record, having heard State counsel and after

¶21

considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Ranjit Singh, J.) passed the following orders on May 15, 2012:

¶23

“Allegation in this case is of attempt to kidnap. Counsel would contend that the daughter of the complainant was having an affair with Ravi Kumar @ Thandi and this FIR has been lodged only to check their meetings. Prayer is for regular bail.

¶24

Notice of motion for 11.07.2012”

¶25

Moreover, all the main allegations of house tress pass, armed with

¶26

datar are alleged against the main accused Ravi Kumar @ Thandi, who is not petitioner in the present petition. The only allegation attributed to the petitioner is that he accompanied Ravi Kumar @ Thandi along with other co-accused. He was empty handed. No specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioner. It was only a case of attempt to kidnap the victim by main accused Ravi Kumar @ Thandi who did not succeed. It is not matter of dispute that petitioner was arrested on 03.12.2011 and since then he is in jail. No useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. Even, since charge has not yet been framed against

¶27

Crl. Misc. No.M-13732 of 2012 -3-

¶28

the accused, so conclusion of main trial would naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of petitioner in any criminal case.

¶29

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking 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 of main case, the instant application for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby accepted. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

¶30

Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present application for regular bail.

¶31

( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge

¶32

July 11, 2012 vcgarg

Vippan Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vippan Kumar 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

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chamkaur Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasvir Singh @ Jasvir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashu Vs State of Haryana

Vikas Vs State of Haryana