Single judge allowed bail to Sukhwinder Singh, summoned as additional accused under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., noting no misuse of liberty and examination of key witnesses.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM M-19019 of 2012 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-19019 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 17, 2012
Sukhwinder Singh
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Ms. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj Advocate
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail having been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The FIR was registered at the instance of Ruldu Ram alleging that on May 2, 2010 complainant and his brother Bharpur Chand were going towards IDBI Bank on G.T. Road, Khanna, when Mohit Sharma, his friend Takdir Singh were having a dispute with accused Deepak Bhaiya. Petitioner Sukhwinder
CRM M-19019 of 2012 (O&M) [2]
Singh armed with an iron rod accompanied by his brother Lai and one Shanky armed with wooden batten came there. They extorted each other to catch hold of them and to teach them a lesson. The petitioner gave a rod blow on the head of Mohit Sharma who fell down. Shanky, non-petitioner gave a wooden batten blow on Mohit Sharma. Lai also gave beatings to Takdir Singh. Deepak Bhaiya hurled brick bats on the person of Takdir Singh and Mohit Sharma. Injured were taken to hospital where Mohit Sharma died. The petitioner was found innocent during the course of investigation and was not challaned but on the statement of complainant Ruldu Ram made in the Court, the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused.
The petition for bail has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the complainant and the State counsel contending that it is the petitioner who has been attributed injuries on the head of the deceased as such he should not be granted the concession of bail.
I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. April 16, 2012. He was earlier declared innocent. It will be premature to express any opinion whether on account of unfair investigation he was declared innocent but the fact remains that his liberty has not been misused by him and that Ruldu Ram, complainant, Takdir injured eye-witness and Bharpur Chand another witness of the occurrence have already been examined while the petitioner was in custody.
CRM M-19019 of 2012 (O&M) [3]
I have considered the contentions of counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is an influential person having connections and that he has been able to win over the investigating agency to get a clean chit at the time of presentation of challan. Appreciation of evidence will not be appropriate at this stage but the fact remains that on the basis of the investigation conducted by the police, a dual version regarding the involvement of the petitioner has come before the Court which is to be appreciated at the final stage. On account of petitioner having not misused his liberty and the material witnesses i.e. Bharpur Chand, Takdir and Ruldu Ram having already been examined, he can be granted the concession of bail.
Petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the prosecution agency or the complainant at the final decision of the case. Anything mentioned in the order is merely for the purpose for adjudication of the present bail petition.
December 17 , 2012 sanjay
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who was summoned as an additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. after being found innocent during investigation.
Whether the petitioner's alleged influence on the investigation and timeline of custody justify denying bail.
Whether the examination of material witnesses while the petitioner was in custody permits grant of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhwinder Singh
State of Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
