Dismissed

Pardhan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2013CRM-M/1016/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by two accused in a murder case arising from a land dispute. The court held that their summons under section 319 Cr.P.C. and their role in restraining victims indicated they were not innocent, necessitating custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; no bail granted.

Pardhan Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1016 of 2013

¶2

----1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1016 of 2013 Date of decision. 17.01.2013

¶5

Pardhan Singh and another ....... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab ........ Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

Present:Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai,Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶11

Pardhan Singh and Gurlal Singh, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 39 dated 25.04.2012 at Police Station Kabar Wala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, for an offence punishable under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are accused of having caught hold of the complainant from his arms. According to him, no other overt act is attributed to them.

¶13

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1016 of 2013

¶14

----2--

¶15

He has further submitted that after due investigation, the police found the two to be innocent and they have now been summoned by the court under section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶16

It is a case that ancestral property was sought to be grabbed in large share by the side of the petitioners. Gurnam Singh, father of the complainant made a complaint in this regard to the Sub Registrar, who acted on the same and refused to register the document and this was the reason for the grudge. On this grudge, Gurnam Singh has been attacked by Amandeep Singh and Ramanpreet Singh with knives.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are not related to the main accused. According to him , the petitioners were not to get any benefit in the matter of the land and, therefore, they had no motive to participate in the occurrence.

¶18

As per the FIR, Pardhan Singh and Gurlal Singh caught hold of Gurpreet Singh, the complainant by his arms. Gurjant Singh and Saraj Singh caught hold Shivraj Singh from his arms and Surjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh caught hold of Gurnam Singh, the deceased by his arms. After the six persons held the three persons in the aforesaid manner, the other two namely Amandeep Singh and Ramanpreet Singh caused injuries with their knives to the deceased Gurnam Singh. Nothing has come before me as to the reason with

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1016 of 2013

¶20

----3--

¶21

the police to find the petitioners to be innocent. If the petitioners had nothing to do with the land and were not related even to the main accused, there was no reason for the complainant to have named them. Not only Gurnam Singh was immobilized and left in a position not to defend himself, the complainant and his cousin Shivraj Singh were also similarly caught hold of and prevented from providing any help to Gurnam Singh, who was under fatal attack. These circumstances clearly show that the matter is serious and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners can not be held entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶22

January 17, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Pardhan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardhan Singh and 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

Raj Rani and Another Vs Gagandeep Kaur @ Pinki

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs Chetna & Anr.

Tanvir Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.