Allowed

Jasbir Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2012CRM-M/3515/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed regular bail for Jasbir Singh, a labourer in custody since November 2011, subject to a bond. It dismissed Tapan Giri's plea for anticipatory bail, noting his role as the accused who instigated the demolition and his refusal to appear.

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety; Tapan Giri's anticipatory bail dismissed.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of U.T… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-3515 and 4205 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-3515 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 22^nd , 2012

¶5

Jasbir Singh .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of U.T. Chandigarh

¶8

.... Respondent

¶9

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-4205 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 22^nd , 2012

¶10

Tapan Giri .... Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of U.T. Chandigarh

¶13

.... Respondent

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶15

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Present Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, and Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶19

Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, Standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶20

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶21

Jasbir Singh in Criminal Misc. No. M-3515 of 2012 has sought regular bail while Tapan Giri by way of Criminal Misc. No.M-4205 of 2012 has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.404 dated 28.10.2011 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, for

¶22

Crl. Misc. No.M-3515 and 4205 of 2012

¶23

¶24

an offence punishable under sections 323, 342, 365, 395, 427, 452 and 506 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Jasbir Singh has submitted that the petitioner has only been a labourer who had worked as a labourer and that he could not be held responsible for demolition of the house of the complainant. According to him, he is in custody since 6.11.2011. He has further submitted that Balbir Singh Saini was the main accused in this case, who has been granted bail under the provisions of section 167(2) Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that the FIR is silent about the role of the petitioner. He has further submitted that from amongst the persons named in the FIR, Ravinder Singh had been found innocent while Rinku and Madan are yet to be arrested.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Tapan Giri has submitted that no overt act has been attributed to him. According to him, the allegations against him are quite vague, where it is alleged that every thing was done at his instance. According to him, he had sold the property to Rinku on 15.9.2011, much before the date of occurrence and he has no connection with the episode. He has further submitted that Balbir Singh Saini had been a property dealer and he had done the whole thing.

¶27

Learned standing counsel for U.T., Chanidgarh has submitted, on the other hand, that Tapan Giri is the main accused in the case. According to him, he had inducted the complainant as a tenant in the house in question which had been sold to Rinku. According to him, he had to give the property free from occupation to Rinku and he had got the

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-3515 and 4205 of 2012

¶29

¶30

house demolished when he could not evict the tenant. He has further submitted that the petitioner, Tapan Giri is absconding and even proceedings to declare him proclaimed offender have been initiated.

¶31

He has further submitted that though, Jasbir Singh, petitioner had been a labourer, yet he cannot be taken to have acted as a labourer alone. He demolished the house when a female was in occupation of the house and she was crying. He has further submitted that this circumstance itself shows his criminal liability and that he is not entitled to bail.

¶32

The role of Jasbir Singh in the occurrence is not more than that of a labourer. He may have ignored the fact that a female was there in the house and that she was crying, but that would not enlarge his role in the occurrence. He is in custody for the last more than 4 months. The guilt of the petitioner, Jasbir Singh is to be proved at the trial and the same would take a long time. For this reason, he is entitled to regular bail.

¶33

Coming to the case of Tapan Giri, he is admittedly the person, who owned the house in question and had inducted the complainant and his family as tenant in the said house. Since the complainant and his family members were not vacating the said house, the house has been got demolished at his instance. He is evading the arrest since long and proceedings to declare him proclaimed offender had been initiated. Such a person is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶34

In view of the above, Criminal Misc. No. M-3515 of 2012 filed by Jasbir Singh is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the

¶35

Crl. Misc. No.M-3515 and 4205 of 2012

¶36

¶37

like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-4205 of 2012 filed by Tapan Giri is dismissed.

¶38

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶39

March 22^nd , 2012 som

Jasbir Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monika Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Surjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Dass Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagat Mohan Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Jyoti Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.