Allowed

Balwant Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2013CRM-M/10480/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making interim bail absolute. The court noted petitioners joined investigation and cases were triable in Magistrate Court without prejudicing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to Section 438(2) conditions.

Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No. M-10480 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-10480 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.05.2013

¶5

Balwant Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Ms. Harpinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. K.S. Aulakh, AAG, Pb., for the State.

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioners Balwant Singh son of Karnail Singh and Kulwant Singh son of Gurmej Singh have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith other coaccused, by means of FIR No.86 dated 15.10.2010, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Arniwala, District Ferozepur, invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶17

CRM No. M-10480 of 2013

¶18

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 04.04.2013:-

¶20

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the occurrence in this case is of the 11.05.2007, whereas the present case was registered against the accused on 15.10.2010. The argument is that even after completion of investigation, since the Investigating Agency, has already submitted the final police report (challan) in the court, so, the petitioners are not required at all. Moreover, the benefit of anticipatory bail has already been granted to Surat Singh (co-accused of the petitioners), by this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2013, in Crl. Misc. No.M-2185 of 2013.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 27.04.2013.

¶23

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

¶24

At the very outset, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Mulak Raj, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. All the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. As per the Investigating Officer charges have already been framed against the accused in this case, so, the question of any recovery did not arise at all.

¶25

CRM No. M-10480 of 2013

¶26

¶27

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 04.4.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶28

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 context.

¶29

04.05.2013 sk

¶30

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

Balwant Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant 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

Shanti & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Chander Khera and Others Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jakria Vs State of Haryana