Allowed

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CRM-M/14974/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to a juvenile petitioner accused under Sections 302, 364, and 34 IPC. The court noted the lack of prosecution evidence, the petitioner's juvenile status, and the absence of prior criminal history, concluding that further detention served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-14974 of 2013(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-14974 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:28.05.2013

¶5

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶13

Petitioner-Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi son of Mohinder Singh, claiming himself to be a juvenile, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Rakesh Kumar, vide FIR No.185 dated 10.11.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶16

The prosecution claimed that on 06.11.2012, Vijay Kumar son of the complainant-Satpal went missing. On 10.11.2012, PWSukhdev Kumar was stated to have informed the complainant that he had

¶17

CRM No.M-14974 of 2013(O&M) 2

¶18

seen his son Vijay Kumar on 06.11.2012 in the company of accused Rakesh Kumar and Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi(petitioner). Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the accused on 10.11.2012. Learned State Counsel has fairly acknowledged that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner except the last seen evidence. Whether such last seen evidence is sufficient for conviction of the accused or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

¶19

Moreover, the petitioner is a juvenile. He was arrested on 11.11.2012. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even since not a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution in this case, so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time.

¶20

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other 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 trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶21

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.

¶22

May 28, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi 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

Lachhman Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Subhash Vs State of Haryana

Parvej Akhtar etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sumitra Devi Vs State of Haryana