Allowed

Krishanjeet Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2013CRM-M/12616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making an earlier interim bail absolute. The court acknowledged the civil dispute背景和 the lack of injury caused, noting the petitioner had joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to filing affidavit and complying with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Krishanjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-12616 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12616 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 08.05.2013

¶5

Krishanjeet Singh .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶9

Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Gourav Verma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Krishanjeet Singh son of late Balbir Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.414 dated 06.04.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 & 216 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station City Hisar, invoking the provisions of 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 present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶17

CRM No.M-12616 of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following

¶20

order was passed by this Court on April 23, 2013:-

¶21

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner & complainant are real brothers. There is a civil dispute with regard to the ownership of the family property and civil suit is pending between them. The argument is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by his brother to put pressure to concede their civil claim and in order to wreak vengeance. The argument further proceeds that five similar FIRs lodged against the petitioner, by the complainant party, were found false and were cancelled by the police. Moreover, no injury is attributed to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 08.05.2013.

¶24

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

¶25

At the very outset, on the instructions from S.I. Suraj Mal, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that the shot fired by him (petitioner) did not hit anybody. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶26

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 23, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to his filing an affidavit before the Investigating Officer that he will not commit any such offence in future and the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation and repeat such offence in future, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of

¶28

his bail, in this respect.

¶29

May 08, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

Krishanjeet Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishanjeet Singh 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

Simranjit Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Naveen Jain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Shweta & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ranjha Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.