Dismissed

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2012CRM-M/38180/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail for robbery and cheating offences. The High Court dismissed the bail application because the alleged compromise submitted by the petitioner was unverified and vague, while stolen property remained unrecovered.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed due to unverified compromise and unrecovered stolen items.

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-38180 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-38180 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.04.2012

¶5

¶6

Sarabjit Singh @ Sita & Anr.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶12

Present:Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

**Mr. A.S. Rai, DAG Punjab. *****

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Sarabjit Singh @ Sita and Amrit Pal Sharma, the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 78 dated 3.5.2011 at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur for an offence punishable under section 382 read with section 34 IPC.

¶16

The prosecution case, briefly put, is that Balbir Singh, the complainant is working in the name of Jagdamba Mobile Phone, a shop situated at the bus stand of Tanda. On 3.5.2011 at about 3/4 p.m. he was present at his shop when petitioner Sarabjit Singh @ Sita came there along with another person. They demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from the complainant and broke the counter and the glass. They started searching for the cash box. When Sunil Kumar, who was also working in the shop, tried to intervene, he was beaten by the accused. A sum of Rs.1100/- from the pocket of the complainant and five mobile phones from the shop were taken away

¶17

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-38180 of 2011

¶19

by the accused. The complainant was also made to sign the bills of Rs.1500/1550.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has been compromised. He has drawn the attention of the court towards Annexure P-1/T, a document titled “Panchayati Compromise”. According to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required in this case.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the compromise does not stand verified. He has further submitted that the petitioner Sarabjit Singh @ Seeta is a notorious person and is also having five other cases against him. He has further submitted that cash and various other articles are yet to be recovered from the petitioners.

¶22

With the factum of compromise, not having been verified and the compromise Annexure P-1/T being vague, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to bail for the reason that various items including cash had been taken away by the petitioners from the shop of complainant which are to be recovered from them. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

April 02,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Raj Singh etc. Vs Haryana State etc.

Prakash Singh Vs Labour Court Patiala and Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs Labour Court, Patiala and Ors.

Jagjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab