Allowed

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2012CRM-M/17769/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The Court held that since custodial interrogation was not required and the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, it was just and expedient to grant bail, relying on Siddaram Mhetre.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed; the order dated 08.06.2012 is made absolute.

Kashmira Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-17769 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-17769 of 2012 Date of decision:02.08.2012

Kashmira Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms.Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR No.86 dated 20.5.2012 under Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 8.6.2012 granting interim protection to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 8.6.2012 , the petitioner has joined the investigation and has also cooperated with the investigating agency. He prays that since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

¶18

CRM No.M-17769 of 2012

¶19

¶20

Sukhwinder Singh, Police Station City Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation in compliance of the order dated 8.6.2012 passed by this Court. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was no more required. However, he submits that since the allegations are direct and specific, the petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and expedient to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner . I say so because in the given fact situation of the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He has already joined the investigation and has also cooperated with the investigating agency.

¶22

The view taken by this Court also finds supports from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddaram Setingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Crl.) 126.

¶23

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 8.6.2012, is made absolute.

¶24

Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed.

¶25

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶26

02.08.2012 mks

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmira 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur

Anupam Aggarwal Vs Gopal Krishan Malhotra

Hans Raj @ Hansa Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surender Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Vs State of Haryana

Jasmail Singh @ Bittu @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab