Criminal Misc. M-34613 of 2011; The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed pre-arrest bail to Sukhdeep Singh @ Seepa in an FIR under the IPC and Arms Act, holding that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he had appeared before the trial court under summons.
The petition allowed. Date 21.11.2011 order granting interim bail made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. M-34613 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M-34613 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:7th March, 2012
Sukhdeep Singh @ Seepa
....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G.,Punjab for the respondent – State.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral)
Sukhdeep Singh @ Seepa seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 35, dated 05.08.2003 at Police Station Humbran, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 450, 336, 323, 324, 325 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 25/27/54 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already appeared before the trial court in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 23.12.2011 and has been admitted to interim bail. He has submitted that the petitioner has been
2
Criminal Misc. M-34613 of 2011
summoned by the trial court under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that all other accused are on bail in this case. He has lastly submitted that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence and he did not cause any injury to any person.
Learned State counsel on instructions from Head Constable, Swaran Singh has admitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the trial court and has been admitted to interim bail. He has not even disputed the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner appears to be entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 21.11.2011 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
[VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE
7th March, 2012 Shivani Kaushik
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner in the registered FIR.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhdeep Singh @ Seepa
State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
