Allowed

Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2013CRM-M/14628/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Jagjit Singh and others. The court made the interim bail granted on 06.05.2013 absolute, subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., after hearing counsel and considering the record without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier is made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Jagjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No. M-14628 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-14628 of 2013 Date of Decision: 16.05.2013

¶5

Jagjit Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

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

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioners Jagjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh and others have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by means of FIR No.49 dated 29.3.2013, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 447, 427 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kotwali Kapurthala, 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 instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶17

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 06.05.2013:-

¶18

CRM No. M-14628 of 2013

¶19

¶20

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that Manjit Singh brother of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 has obtained the possession of the plot in dispute situated in Abadi Deh (Lal lakir), vide agreement dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) from Surjit Singh. The argument is that the dispute was raised and decided by the panchayat, vide compromise deed dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P-3). In this manner, no indicated offences are made out and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 16.05.2013.

¶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

¶25

ASI Ranjit 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 their previous involvement 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.

¶26

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as

¶27

CRM No. M-14628 of 2013

¶28

¶29

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 06.05.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

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.

¶31

16.05.2013 sk

¶32

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjit Singh & Ors. 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

Balbir Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Nirmal Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Amar Singh Vs State of Haryana