Allowed

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2012CRM-M/17824/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail. Noting that investigation facts changed and dual versions emerged, the court held that justice would be served by not imprisoning the petitioner absent specific allegations of killing or conspiracy, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner to appear before trial court with existing bonds; no tampering with evidence or witnesses; no absence without cause.

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-17824 of 2012 Date of decision: December 12, 2012.

¶4

¶5

Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶8

¶9

Present: Shri S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Jatana, Addl: A.G.Punjab.

¶10

Shri Malkiat Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶11

¶12

M.M.S.BEDI,J (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Lakhvir Singh, alleging that his younger sister was married to the petitioner and he was responsible for the un-natural death of his sister as she had been administered some poisonous substance after giving her severe beatings.

¶14

During the course of investigation conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, Jaspal Singh, a new turn was given to the story, originally given by Lakhvir Singh. On the basis of the said investigation it was Dr. Harvinder Singh, his wife Kamaljit Kaur and his mother in law Chindo, who were responsible for the death of Amarjit Kaur, who was being illegally aborted to avoid the birth of third female child.

¶15

The supplementary statements of complainant Lakhvir Singh, Baldev Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur have been recorded to the effect that the petitioner used to maltreat the deceased for having given birth to two daughters and being incapable to deliver the male child. They

¶16

-2- Crl.Misc. No. M-17824 of 2012

¶17

had stated in their statement that the matter used to be compromised between the parties at different occasions.

¶18

It is an admitted fact that dual versions have already been cropped up falsifying the original version of the complainant. It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and under the interim orders he had been appearing before the investigating agency and before the court after the presentation of the challan. The challan having already been presented and the petitioner having already put in appearance before the Court, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner behind the bars, there being no specific allegations of having killed his wife or having conspired with his family members.

¶19

The petitioner has raised a plea of alibi, at the time of occurrence, as he was posted at Akhnoor.

¶20

In view of above circumstances, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner will continue to appear before the trial court against the bail bonds already furnished by him. He will not tamper with the evidence and will not in any manner indulge in threatening or inducing the witnesses. He will not absent himself without any sufficient cause during the course of trial.

¶21

December 12, 2012 malik

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Pal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hitesh Malhotra & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gobind Masih & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & or.S

Bhushan @ Brij Bhushan Vs State of Haryana

Umar Moha. Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others