Allowed

Sahib Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2013CRM-M/10661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail petition wherein the accused, in a complaint case involving allegations of treason and theft, were initially found innocent by police inquiry. The Court held that custody was not required for justice in a complaint case and granted pre-arrest bail based on interim bail already admitted.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; interim anticipatory bail granted by the lower court was made absolute.

Sahib Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M- 10661 of 2013 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Misc.No.M-10661 of 2013

¶4

Date of Decision:22.05.2013

¶5

Sahib Singh and another

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Rajat Mor, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.1.

¶13

Mr.Rampal Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)

¶15

Sahib Singh and Jugal Kishore, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in complaint case No.470 dated 11.10.2007/17.04.20012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, for an offence punishable under sections 302, 304 and 342 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M- 10661 of 2013 (O&M) 2

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the death of the husband of the complainant, an FIR was registered at the police station, which was duly investigated and cancellation report was filed in the said case. According to him, the complainant appeared before the Magistrate in the matter of that cancellation report and had made a statement that she has no objection if the cancellation report was accepted. According to him, thereafter, she filed a petition before this court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2007. According to him, she went to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the said order and her special leave petition has been dismissed. According to him, as per Annexure P-3, liberty was granted to the complainant to approach the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and she has filed this complaint.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the deceased died at his house and no post mortem examination was conducted. According to him, he died on account of taking some poison, which is the finding in the enquiry. He further submits that in pursuance of the order of this court dated 03.04.2013, the petitioners have already

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M- 10661 of 2013 (O&M) 3

¶20

appeared before the court and have been admitted to interim bail by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, vide order dated 06.04.2013.

¶21

Learned State counsel has nothing to say in the matter as the matter has originated in a complaint.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that in a case of theft, the deceased was taken in custody by the police and was given merciless beating and he was sent back on 28.12.2009 and he died during the intervening night of 28^th and 29^th December 2009. According to him, the police did not allow the complainant to get post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of her husband. According to him, she had made a request for getting post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of her husband but the police did not allow the same to be done. He further submits that this is a case of serious dimensions and the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. He further submits that the deceased gave the names of the petitioners and one Pritvi Singh as having tortured him in custody.

¶23

This is a case originating in a complaint case. There is no stage of custodial interrogation in a complaint case. So custody of an accused in a complaint case is not required for

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M- 10661 of 2013 (O&M) 4

¶25

furtherance of the cause of justice. It is a case where the police on investigation found the petitioners to be innocent and cancellation report was accepted on the statement of the complainant herself. In these circumstances, when the petitioners have already appeared before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, and have been admitted to interim bail, I find them to be entitled to pre-arrest bail during the trial. Hence, the petition is consequently allowed. The order dated 03.04.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made absolute.

¶26

May 22,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) dinesh JUDGE

Sahib Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahib Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Kuldeep Singh Alias Bala Vs State of Punjab

Tirath Singh Vs State of Punjab

Neha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manisha Chaudhary & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.