Allowed

Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2013CRM-M/15478/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The court considered that the petitioner had joined the investigation, the penalty was challenged in civil court with deposit made, and no prior criminal history existed. It made the interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

CRM No.M-15478 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-15478 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision:21.05.2013

¶6

Dilbag Singh .....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr.Hitender Kansal, Advocate, for Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Dilbag Singh son of Rai Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.13 dated 29.01.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by the police of Police Station Irrigation & Power, Jind, 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 help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶17

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following

¶18

CRM No.M-15478 of 2013

¶19

¶20

order was passed by this Court on May 10, 2013:-

¶21

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the concerned authority has illegally imposed a penalty of Rs.1,65,310/- and Rs.60,000/- as compounded fees. The argument is that the petitioner has challenged the impugned penalty and the civil court directed him to deposit 40% of the total amount, vide order dated 27.04.2013(Annexure P-2), which he has already paid, by way of receipt (Annexure P-3) and no criminal offence is made out against him.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 21.05.2013.

¶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 surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

¶25

At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Swarn Singh, 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 petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the authorities imposing an exorbitant penalty upon him in the civil court. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. 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 means of order dated May 10, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

CRM No.M-15478 of 2013 3

¶28

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this regard.

¶29

May 21, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilbag 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

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Satbir Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh and Ors.

Jaspal Singh Gill Vs Sikander

Narender Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Chugh Vs State of Haryana