The petitioner sought regular bail citing the framing of charges as changed circumstances. The court held that the investigation was complete at the time of the first bail order, rendering the filing of the challan devoid of new facts, and dismissed the second application.
The second petition for bail is dismissed as it does not lie.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-24127 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-24127 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 3rd , 2012
Kultar Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State.
Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate, for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl.M.No.58625 of 2012
Application is allowed. The medico legal report filed with the application is taken on record.
Main Petition
Kultar Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.145 dated 22.6.2011 at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 406, 498-A and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
This is a second application for bail, the first having been
Crl. Misc. No.M-24127 of 2012
2
dismissed on merits vide order dated 8.5.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petition has been brought on changed fact situation. According to him, challan has been presented in the case and charge has been framed for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A IPC and the petitioner is in custody since 23.2.2012.
The other submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the injury of the complainant on her neck not supporting the oral allegations of strangulating her have already been dealt with in the order dated 8.5.2012. It is a fact as is evident from the order dated 8.5.2012 that the investigation was over at that time also and so filing of challan does not provide any changed circumstances on the basis of which the present petition could be brought.
In these circumstances, the second petition for bail does not lie and the same is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
October 3rd , 2012 som
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second bail petition based on the presentation of the challan constitutes changed circumstances warranting reconsideration of a previously dismissed bail application.
Kultar Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
