Allowed

Gurjant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2012CRM-M/8877/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted a petition for anticipatory bail, making absolute an interim order passed during a preliminary hearing, subject to compliance of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions and the requirement to join investigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated March 28, 2012 was made absolute, granting anticipatory bail subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Gurjant Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-8877 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-8877 of 2012(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:17.04.2012

¶6

Gurjant Singh and another ......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Gorav Dhuriwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶14

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ranjit Singh, J.) passed the following order on March 28, 2012:-

¶15

“Relies on an order passed in respect of co-accused, who has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. The case is now coming up for hearing on 4.4.2012.

¶16

Notice of motion for 4.4.2012.

¶17

In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. They will join the investigation as and when required.

¶18

To be heard along with CRM-M No.6459 of 2012.”

¶19

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Sukhchain Singh, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that Sukhdarshan Kaur and another, co-accused of the petitioners, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, by way of order dated 04.04.2012, rendered in Criminal Misc.No.M-6459

¶20

Criminal Misc.No.M-8877 of 2012

¶21

¶22

of 2012.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, oozing out from the record, as discussed here-inabove, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim order dated March 28, 2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant behalf.

¶25

April 17, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Gurjant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjant Singh & Anr. 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

Tarsem Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gill Cooperative L&C Society (Diploma Holder) Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

J.C.B. India Ltd. Vs Permanent Lok Adalat (Pus) and Ors.

Sunita Vs Uhbvnl and Ors.