Allowed

Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2012CRM-M/27634/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving cheating by personation and forgery. The High Court, observing that co-accused were already released, granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond of 25,000 with a surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. M-27634 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. M-27634 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:17^th January, 2012

¶4

Satish Kumar

¶5

.......Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab

¶8

........Respondent

¶9

BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present: Mr. A.K.Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State.

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

¶15

Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral)

¶16

Satish Kumar -- petitioner has applied for regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 73, dated 16.08.2011 at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶17

The case in brief is that Madhu Bala impersonated as Pritam Kaur and had sold a plot belonging to Pritam Kaur to the complainant. She was identified by Arun Kumar and the petitioner, who are said to be property dealers through whom the deal was

¶18

Criminal Misc. M-27634 of 2011

¶19

¶20

struck.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Madhu Bala as well as Arun Kumar co-accused have been granted bail by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. According to him, the application of bail filed by Satish Kumar – petitioner was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana for the reason that the investigation was in progress at that time. He has further submitted that there is no reason to distinguish the case against the petitioner from the case against the other two who have been allowed bail.

¶22

Keeping in view the fact that the other two co-accused have already been released on bail and there is no reason to distinguish the cases against the three, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of ` 25,000/- with a surety bond in the said amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶23

[VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE

¶24

17^th January, 2012 Shivani Kaushik

Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish 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

Ashok Kumar Vs Satbir Singh and Another

(O&M) Vidya Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Avtar Singh and Anr.

Anita Rani and Others Vs Dharam Pal and Others

Kusum Rani Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Banarsi Dass & Others Vs Achhar Kumar & Another

Beant Kaur Vs Gursewak Singh