Allowed

Satinder @ Happy v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2012CRM-M/35593/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., converting an interim order into absolute bail subject to standard conditions, noting the petitioner had joined investigation and co-accused were on bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was accepted; interim bail granted on 9.11.2012 is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Satinder @ Happy Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-35593 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 20, 2012

Satinder @ Happy

..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Punjab

..... RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶10

. . .

¶11

PRESENT : - Ms. Amandeep Sibia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

. . .

¶14

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J (Oral)

¶15

Petitioner, Satinder @ Happy son of Nirmal Singh, has directed the instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his co-accused, namely, Sandeep, Deepak Ghai and Amandeep Singh, by means of FIR No.62 dated 7.9.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station,

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-35593 of 2012 [2]

¶17

Haibowal, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶19

After hearing the leaned counsel for the parties,

¶20

going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶21

During the course of preliminary hearing, the

¶22

following order was passed by this Court on 9.11.2012:-

¶23

“Learned counsel, inter alia , contended that neither any injury nor any specific role is attributed to the petitioner and all the offences alleged against him are bailable, except under Section 452 IPC (which is not made out). The argument is that it is a case of cross-version, in which, the petitioner has also sustained grievous injuries.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 20.11.2012.

¶26

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

¶27

At the very outset, learned State counsel, on

¶28

instructions from ASI – Ajaib Singh, has acknowledged the factual matrix and stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation in this case. He is no longer required for

¶29

further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that Sandeep and Deepak Ghai,

¶30

Crl. Misc. No.M-35593 of 2012 [3]

¶31

co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed bail by the Trial Court, whereas Amandeep Singh is still in custody.

¶32

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances emanating from the record as discussed hereinabove, the petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner – accused vide order dated 9.11.2012 is hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of essential conditions as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶33

Needless to mention that if the petitioner does not join/ cooperate with the investigation, then the prosecution would be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of his bail.

¶34

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 20, 2012 Judge avin

Satinder @ Happy v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satinder @ Happy 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

Surjit Kaur Vs Punjab Agriculture University and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Saini Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tayal Energy Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S Ropar Thermal Plant (Cgstp) Pseb Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Fire Brigade Employees Union Jalandhar (Regd) Vs State of Punjab and Ors.