Dismissed

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/1656/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed bail cancellation petition. Court rejected claims that a police official respondent would intimidate witnesses or manipulate records without evidentiary basis, holding that anticipatory bail could not be cancelled on future apprehensions alone.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed; previous order dated 23.12.2010 stood uncancelled.

Bhupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

**Crl. Misc. No. M-1656 of 2011 Date of Decision: 08.05.2012 *****

Bhupinder Kaur

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present:Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.S. Grewal, DAG Punjab.

¶11

**Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. *****

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

Bhupinder Kaur, the petitioner has brought this petition under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide order dated 23.12.2010 in a case registered by way of FIR No. 37 dated 13.7.2010 at Police Station Phase-XI, Mohali for an offence punishable under sections 364,365 and120-B IPC.

¶14

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Gurdeep Singh son of the complainant went missing and regarding the same, complainant lodged a report with the police which was recorded in the daily diary on 6.7.2010. A week thereafter, on the version contained in this DDR, FIR was recorded.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents no.2 to 4 have misused the concession of bail. According to him, Jagbir Singh(respondent No.2) is a police official and he has tampered with the zimnis as well as record of the police station. According to him, this is so stated by the Special Investigating Team(SIT). He has further submitted that respondent no.2 will intimidate the witnesses and will not allow them to give evidence in court.

¶17

It is a case where respondent no.1 applied for anticipatory bail in the beginning and the police came out with the version that he was not required in the case. The complainant challenged that order and on her petition SIT was constituted to investigate this case. Respondents no.2 to 4 again moved a petition for anticipatory bail and they have been granted the said concession vide order dated 23.12.2010 which is challenged by way of this petition.

¶18

In this case, after investigation challan has been filed against respondent no.2 Jasbir Singh. Gurdeep Singh is still not traceable. As argued by learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned State counsel, Gurdeep Singh had been living with private respondents for three months before his disappearance. According to them, he even went to New Zealand with them. According to them, on 3.7.2010 he is said to have come to his mother and therefrom he went away on 4.7.2010. It is argued that there is no evidence of even last seen together of Gurdeep Singh with private respondents.

¶19

There is no case that any irrelevant material had been

¶20

¶21

considered or relevant material was ignored to grant the concession of bail. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent no.2 had tampered with zimnis or record of the police station with regard to this case. The allegation of the petitioner is that he had manipulated the zimnis of his own police station which would not mean that he has tried to interfere with the evidence of this case. Bail cannot be cancelled on the ground that respondent no.2 being a police official would intimidate the witnesses. If any such thing happens in future, the petitioner can file an appropriate petition for cancellation of bail. On the bare allegations that in future he will intimidate the witnesses, the bail order cannot be cancelled.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to cancel the bail order dated 23.12.2010.The petition is, consequently, dismissed.

¶23

May 08,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Gram Panchayat Vill. Pohir Vs State of Punjab etc.

Dhani Ram Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors.

Sajjan Singh & Anr. Vs Commissioner Gurgaon Dn. Gurgaon & Ors.

Balwinder Singh & Ors. Vs Addl.Director Cons.of Holding Pb.Chd.Etc

Mohinder Singh Annd Ors. Vs Banta Singh and Ors.

Majjar Vs State of Haryana