Allowed

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CRM-M/22131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC following the absence of the Investigating Officer, noting risks of prejudicial mis-statements by non-officials.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds; Director General of Police (Punjab) directed to enquire into and act against defaulting officials.

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-22131 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

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

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-22131 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2012.

¶5

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Shri Gagandeep Singh Simble, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):

¶13

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.25, dated 20.4.2012, registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officer is not present in Court to assist him, however, one HC Jagdish Singh has appeared.

¶15

Keeping in view the fact that this Court has noticed in number of cases that the persons other than the Investigating Officer appear and they make mis-statements, which resultantly affects prejudicially the rights of the accused and they have to remain behind the bars. In one such case, Crl. Misc. No. M-13750 of 2012, a wrong statement was made by HC Rattan Lal for which he has been issued a show cause notice today in that

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-22131 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :-

¶17

case.

¶18

State Counsel cannot rebut the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 2.5.2012 and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of the fact and no proper assistance is rendered, the petitioner is granted bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

¶19

However, Director General of Police, Punjab is directed to enquire into the matter and take action against the defaulting officials.

¶20

Disposed of.

¶21

September 25, 2012. kadyan

¶22

[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjeet Singh @ Kaka 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjit Kaur @ Babbi Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Ali Vs State of Haryana

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Singh Goga Vs State of Punjab