Allowed

Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Feb 2012CRM-M/3156/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court observed that medical evidence did not corroborate the petitioner's alleged role. With prosecution costs uncommenced and detention deemed unwarranted, the court granted bail on satisfaction of the CJM.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-3156 of 2012

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-3156 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision: 24 - 2 – 2012

Sahib Singh

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Ms.Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶15

¶16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶17

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.14 dated 24.1.2011 registered at Police Station Patti, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran under Sections 302, 452, 427, 34 IPC.

¶18

This Court on 6.2.2012 while issuing notice of motion has passed the following order:-

¶19

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased Kabal Singh had suffered only one injury, which is attributed to Satnam Singh, co-accused of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner is alleged to have caused injuries, yet no such injury has been found on the person of Kabal Singh, deceased.

¶20

[2]

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-3156 of 2012

¶22

Issue notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab, for 24.2.2012.”

¶23

Counsel for the State, after going through the post-mortem report has not denied the fact that in the post-mortem report only two injuries were found, detail of which has been given in para 2 of the petition and these injuries are attributed to Satnam Singh co-accused.

¶24

Thus, it is evident that the medical evidence in no way corroborate the ocular version qua the role assigned to the petitioner.

¶25

Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 3.2.2011. Prosecution

¶26

case has not yet commenced. Hence, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not warranted.

¶27

Consequently, the present petition is accepted. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran.

¶28

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 24, 2012. JUDGE

¶29

Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahib 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

Saroj Singhal Vs State of Haryana

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab

Mehar Chand Saini Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Jatinder Kumar @ Jk Vs State of Punjab

Danial @ Nama Vs State of Punjab