Dismissed

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Oct 2012CRM-M/29443/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the case was not fit for extraordinary relief given the petitioner's prolonged absconding and the investigation report suggesting active participation with a weapon.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition was dismissed being devoid of merit.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-29443 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-29443 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: October 6, 2012

Sarabjit Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Toor, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

.......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.59816 of 2012

¶15

Requests for placing on record statements of witnesses, namely, Harvinder Singh and Avtar Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation.

¶16

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Crl.M.No.56542 of 2012

¶18

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶19

Crl.M.No.M-29443 of 2012

¶20

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.44, dated 21.6.2011, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 447, 448, 511, 427, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, and under Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Sunam, District Sangrur.

¶21

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, Sangrur, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶22

Brief allegations are that complainant alongwith Gurjant Singh @ Janta son of Inder Singh, Harwinder Singh son of Mewa Singh, Raj

¶23

-2-

¶24

Crl.M.No.M-29443 of 2012(O&M)

¶25

Singh son of Mewa Singh, Avtar Singh @ Tari son of Jarnail Singh, and Paramjeet Singh @ Soni son of Sukhdev Singh were working in the fields on 21.6.2011. At about 3.30 p.m. 6-7 vehicles alongwith one tractor being driven by co-accused Mal Singh son of Kaka Singh reached there. From the said vehicles co-accused alongwith some other persons while armed with deadly weapons came out and started forcibly ploughing the land belonging to the complainant and, however, when they resisted, they were attacked. Fire arm injuries were caused to complainant and others persons. Injuries were also given to complainant and other persons with other weapons by the co-accused.

¶26

Hence, allegations are that petitioner alongwith co-accused tried to take forcible possession of the land of the complainant party and when they resisted they were attacked and one of the injured, namely, Gurjant Singh succumbed to the injuries.

¶27

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that he has not been named in the FIR and, however, he is being falsely implicated in this case without any basis. It is also contended that his co-accused were already granted concession of bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2011 passed in Crl.M.No.M-36231 of 2011.

¶28

However, case is at the initial stage of investigation. Challan has already been filed against co-accused and, however, petitioner remained absconding. The present FIR is dated 21.6.2011 and for the last more than one year petitioner is absconding.

¶29

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that he has already moved an application before the police for enquiry and hence, he did not surrender earlier.

¶30

Though copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.filed against co-accused has not been placed on record by the petitioner and, however, he has placed on record copy of statements of two witnesses, who have not mentioned the name of the petitioner. However, it has been observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, while going through the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against co-accused that it came during investigation that the present petitioner-applicant actively participated in the

¶31

Crl.M.No.M-29443 of 2012(O&M)

¶32

-3-

¶33

crime as he also accompanied the co-accused at the time of commission of offence while armed with deadly weapon.

¶34

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.

¶35

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

¶36

6.10.2012

¶37

meenu

¶38

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarabjit Singh 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

Pooja & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dhan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Bhunder Bhaini Vs Director Cum Special Secy Pb. etc.

Net Ram and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Collector and Ors.

Net Ram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harjit Singh Vs Div. Commissioner, Patiala & Ors.