Allowed

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2012CRM-M/8769/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences under IPC and the Arms Act. The court noted he was found innocent during investigation. It granted absolute bail, converting existing interim anticipatory bail, finding custody unnecessary. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and the order dated 28.03.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-8769 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-8769 of 2012 Date of Decision: 10.07.2012

¶5

¶6

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann .. Petitioner

¶7

VS.

¶8

State of Punjab .. Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

**Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG Punjab. *****

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL).

¶13

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann , the petitioner seeks prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 132 ddated 22.4.2006 at Police Station Sadar Khanna, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 323,336, 341, 34 read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been found innocent during investigation by the police and he was not challaned. According to him, at the trial, an application was made under section 319 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner has been summoned as an accused by learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide orders dated 14.2.2012. He further submits that the petitioner has now appeared before the trial court in compliance with the directions of this court dated 28.3.2012 and has been

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-8769 of 2012

¶16

¶17

admitted to interim bail.

¶18

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner had been accused of firing gun shot in the air. He, however, admits that the said gun shot did not hit anyone. According to him, the further allegation is that he snatched a sword of unidentified co-accused and gave two blows with it to Beant Singh.

¶19

The allegation of snatching of sword and giving of blows were not there in the FIR and they have been brought before the police subsequently. The fact is that the police found the petitioner innocent during investigation. The stage of investigation is already over. The co-accused of the petitioner are said to be on bail and there is no use to keep the petitioner in custody.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 28.3.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶21

July 10,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvir Singh @ Ladi Mann 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

Rajesh & Ors. Vs Dharam Pal

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh Bhaau Vs State of Punjab

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Purnima Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khushpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.