Allowed

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2012CRM-M/21567/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court observed that the intention to cause injury would be a matter for trial, the investigation was complete, and no custodial interrogation was required.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner Darshan Singh is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, L

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-21567 of 2012 Date of Decision: 10.10.2012

Darshan Singh

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶9

Present: Mr. G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to Darshan Singh, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶14

The allegations against the petitioner are that he had borrowed an amount of 1,80,000/- from Maingal Singh (since deceased). Out of the said amount, 1,00,000/- were returned. On the date of incident, the petitioner, Darshan Singh son of Sajjan Singh, along with Major Singh and Darshan Singh, ExSarpanch of the village, had gone to settle the amount with

¶15

Criminal Misc. No.M-21567 of 2012 -2-

¶16

Maingal Singh. There at the house of Maingal Singh, a scuffle took place between the petitioner and Maingal Singh. Resultantly, Maingal Singh fell down and sustained injuries.

¶17

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 02.06.2012. He further contends that even if all the contents of the F.I.R. are taken at their face value then also, the mischief of Section 304, IPC is not attracted since the petitioner had no intention to cause injuries to Maingal Singh (since deceased). He further contends that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he caused injuries to the deceased. He further submits that the allegation is only with regard to scuffle between Maingal Singh and the present petitioner. He also contends that Maingal Singh (since deceased) being of an old age might have sustained injuries on account of fall on the Sofa Set. He further contends that the investigation is complete and the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner is not worth.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State and Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. They submit that the petitioner has committed the heinous crime, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Criminal Misc. No.M-21567 of 2012 -3-

¶21

The petitioner has been booked for the offence under Sections 304 read with Section 34, IPC. The intention to cause such injury attracting the mischief of Section 304, IPC would be a moot point during the course of trial. The petitioner is behind the bars since 02.06.2012. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and the case has been committed to the Court of Session. The petitioner is not required by the Investigating Agency for custodial interrogation or any other purpose.

¶22

Without commenting much on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner Darshan Singh son of Sajjan Singh, resident of VPO Haas Kalan, District Ludhiana, is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

¶23

Crl. Misc. stands disposed of.

¶24

October 10, 2012 Gagan

¶25

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan 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

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Major Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.