Dismissed

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2012CRM-M/30909/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an oral order in a criminal miscellaneous petition filed for anticipatory bail. The single judge dismissed the application stating it was devoid of merit without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, citing the petitioner's involvement in other similar cases and recovery of a firearm.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-30909 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.Misc.No.M-30909 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:January 25, 2012.

¶5

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny

¶6

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

........RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, D.A.G. Punjab, counsel for respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.58 dated 07.04.2011 under Sections 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the bail application of the petitioner.

¶17

Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he was armed with fire-arm and he along with co-accused attacked the

¶18

CRM No.M-30909 of 2011 -2-

¶19

complainant and fired a shot from his pistol and however, the same did not hit the complainant, co-accused caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons.

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case and further that it is a case of no injury.

¶21

The bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that petitioner is involved in 3/4 other cases of similar type. It is further contended that fire-arm used in this case has already been recovered from the possession of petitioner in another case subsequently. It is further contended that he was declared proclaimed offender in this case and in some other cases pending against him.

¶22

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

¶23

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Sandeep Singh @ Sunny is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶24

January 25, 2012. Sachin M.

¶25

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny 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

Ranjit Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab

Parminder Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Gurmukh Singh @ Gukhi Vs State of Punjab

Maman and Another Vs State of Haryana

Sheela and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Hardial Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab