Dismissed

Amandeep Karwal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jul 2012CRM-M/22530/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.No.M-22530 of 2012, this court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The petition was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding FIR No.104 alleging murder and arms violation. The court found the allegations serious and denied the relief without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-22530 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-22530 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: July 30, 2012

Amandeep Karwal

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.IPS Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.43518 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-22530 of 2012

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.104, dated 5.7.2012, under Sections 302, 34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶19

Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that

¶20

complainant had noticed petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused exchanging hot words with Harpreet Singh-deceased and thereafter co-

¶21

-2-

¶22

Crl.M.No.M-22530 of 2012(O&M)

¶23

accused fired two shots from his pistol, which hit at the right flank of the deceased. It has been clarified by the complainant that petitioner is also known as Aman Verma and that he has been specifically named in the FIR.

¶24

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that fatal injury has not been attributed to him.

¶25

However, in view of the serious allegations against petitioneraccused, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.

¶26

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Amandeep Karwal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶27

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶28

30.7.2012

¶29

meenu

Amandeep Karwal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Karwal 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

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Joginder Singh Bhogal Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Natinder Nath Saini etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich etc. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nagar Nigam Safai Karamchari Union Vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad