Dismissed

Mann Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2012CRM-M/17462/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that the case, involving a suicide note with specific allegations by the deceased against the petitioner, requires custodial interrogation and is not suitable for extraordinary relief at the initial stage of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

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

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-17462 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-17462 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: July 3, 2012

Mann Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.34738 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-17462 of 2012

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.4, dated 5.1.2012, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶19

Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that death of Harnek Singh had taken place due to hanging. He committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note in which he levelled allegations against petitioner-

¶20

-2-

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-17462 of 2012(O&M)

¶22

accused to the effect that petitioner levelled false allegations against deceased that he had taken `.35,00,000/- and in that regard he gave false complaint to police Station Samana and it was at his instance that the deceased alongwith four other persons visited Samana and, however, petitioner did not turn up. There are further allegations that he also tried to usurp his land and he got his signatures on some documents. In the suicide note he repeated many times that petitioner alone is responsible for his death.

¶23

Petitioner is related to the deceased as his co-brother. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that deceased was having no son and he was having only two daughters and that complainant is husband of one of the daughters and that he was the only beneficiary as his wife alongwith his sister were to inherit the property of deceased Harnek Singh. It is further submitted that no such complaint was made by petitioner-accused to Police Station Samana and that no civil suit was also filed by petitioner nor any document regarding sale of land was got prepared by petitioner. It is further submitted that the alleged suicide note is not in the hands of deceased. It is further submitted that case of petitioner is similar to co-accused-Harjeet Singh, who was already granted benefit of interim bail by this Court.

¶24

However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that case of petitioner is similar to co-accused -Harjeet Singh. Rather main allegation in the suicide note of the deceased are against the present petitioner, who is related to him as his co-brother. So far as other points argued by learned counsel for the petitioner are

¶25

Crl.M.No.M-17462 of 2012(O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

concerned, the same are a matter of investigation. The case is at the initial stage of investigation.

¶28

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary.

¶29

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Mann Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶30

3.7.2012 meenu

¶31

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Mann Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mann 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

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Kaur and Ors. Vs Surinder Singh

Atma Ram Garg Vs State of Punjab

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Vs State of Haryana