Allowed

Gurminder Singh @ Soni v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2012CRM-M/32583/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed regular bail in a criminal case involving sections 307, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act where the trial had not commenced, no witnesses were examined, and the case was described as a version and cross version likely to cause long delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail during pendency of trial subject to furnishing bail bonds to satisfaction of the relevant Magistrate, Kapurthala.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-32583 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-32583 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision : 19.12.2012

¶5

Gurminder Singh @ Soni

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Goel, Addl.AG, Punjab, assisted by HC Avtar Singh.

¶13

Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.29 dated 25.04.2012, registered under Sections307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner's side also suffered injuries and in respect of which, an FIR under Section 326 IPC stands registered against the complainants, however,

¶17

CRM No.M-32583 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶18

no one has been arrested so far. The petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2012. Out of the total 19 witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined so far.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail petition.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

It is a case of version and cross version. The petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2012. Challan has been presented however none of

¶22

the witnesses has been examined so far. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Therefore, no purpose would be achieved by keeping the petitioner in further incarceration.

¶23

In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶24

19.12.2012

¶25

atulsethi

¶26

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

Gurminder Singh @ Soni v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurminder Singh @ Soni 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

Dildar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Vohra and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Deepu Alias Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Khalid Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Munshi Ram @ Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit @ Nanki Vs State of Punjab