Allowed

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2013CRM-M/10707/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the petition for anticipatory bail filed by Joginder Singh in a case involving offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Considering the preliminary facts and lack of prior involvement, the court made the interim bail granted on March 3 absolutely, subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was accepted and the interim bail granted on 03.04.2013 was made absolute.

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

¶1

CRM No. M-10707 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-10707 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.05.2013

¶5

Joginder Singh and another

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioners Joginder Singh son of Gurdial Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by means of FIR No.37 dated 16.2.2013, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran, 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-10707 of 2013

¶18

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 03.04.2013:-

¶20

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that Ninder Kaur wife of Sohan Singh, brother of petitioner No.1, has transferred the joint property in dispute, to the complainant on 26.05.2011, without effecting any legal partition. Although the petitioner No.1 Joginder Singh has neither executed any agreement to sell nor received any payment from the complainant, still he (complainant) has falsely implicated the petitioners in the instant case in order to wreak vengeance. Heard.

¶21

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

¶22

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.”

¶23

At the very outset, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Surinder Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any other criminal case. All the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan), so, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time.

¶24

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration

¶25

CRM No. M-10707 of 2013

¶26

¶27

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 03.4.2013 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

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

¶30

04.05.2013 sk

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder 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

Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jakria Vs State of Haryana