Allowed

Harjinder Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2012CRM-M/24307/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC regarding FIR 9/2012 under Sections 363/366-A/376/120-B IPC, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner despite the lack of cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the pending trial, distinguishing him slightly from the juvenile main accused.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing bail bonds satisfactory to the learned trial Court.

Harjinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-24307 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-24307 of 2012 Date of decision: 4.10.2012

Harjinder Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.TPS Tung, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

By filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.9, dated 22.4.2012, registered under Sections 363/366-A/ 376, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only role attributed to the petitioner is that he gave lift to the prosecutrix and coaccused Rajan on his motorcycle. He further submits that Rajan and the prosecutrix allegedly solemnized the marriage. He further submits that co-accused Rajan, being a juvenile, has already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.5.2012. The petitioner is about 20 years of age and lodged in Borstal Jail, Ludhiana since 23.4.2012.

¶17

CRM No.M-24307 of 2012 2

¶18

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the

¶19

prayer of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the prosecutrix has been examined, whereas the learned State counsel submits that she has not been cross-examined as yet.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The petitioner is in custody since 23.4.2012. The main accused Rajan, who had affair with the prosecutrix, has been enlarged on bail being a juvenile. The petitioner is marginally elder to the main accused Rajan. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future.

¶23

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶24

4.10.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Harjinder Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Kumar 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

Jasbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shobha Vs State of Haryana

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljit Singh Alias Jeeta Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurmeet Kaur Alias Meeto Vs State of Punjab