Allowed

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2012CRM-M/31280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment granted regular bail to the petitioner who surrendered after failing to appear for several years in a criminal trial. The court held that given the incarceration period and the ongoing trial, detention was no longer necessary.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular bail and ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM No. M-31280 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: November 19, 2012 CRM No. M-31280 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Ajit Singh …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶9

Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 148 dated 16.09.2005, under Sections 323, 325, 379, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Raikot, Ludhiana.

¶15

The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 148 and he did not put in appearance on 04.01.2008. Thereafter, he surrendered on 25.07.2012. The allegation in the FIR is that he along with other co-accused had stolen two tolas gold and Rs. 21,00/- apart from inflicting simple injuries on the complainant. While declining his bail application by the Judicial Magistrate, Jagroan on 04.08.2012 and thereafter by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 22.08.2012 no proceeding has been shown on account of the absence from

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM No. M-31280 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

the Court. Due to his absence, trial has been delayed. Since the petitioner has now surrendered on 25.07.2012.

¶19

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gulab Singh, has informed the Court that after framing of the charges, the trial is at the stage of recording of evidence. All the four other co-accused are on bail.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that trial may still take some time to conclude, this court feels

¶22

that there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

¶23

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶24

November 19, 2012 Atul

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit 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

Daljit Singh @ Bholi Vs State of Punjab

Hom Made Baker'S Vs Food Inspector (State of Punjab) and Ors.

Jaswant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nikri @ Seema Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Aash Mohammad Vs Raj Kumar & Ors.

Varinder Bhatia and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.