Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2013CRM-M/1804/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An oral judgment granting regular bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 302/307 IPC. The court noted the sudden fight version, lack of injury attribution to the petitioner, and no evidence of absconding or witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC allowed; bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Tarn Taran.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-1804 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1804 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2013.

¶5

Sukhwinder Singh @Sonu

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.140 dated 24.11.2011, under Sections 302/307/34 IPC, registered at police station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

CRM No.M-1804 of 2013

¶18

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he has been continuing in custody since 02.12.2011 and that no injury has been attributed to him to the deceased. It is further submitted that injury has been attributed to a witness, namely, Jatinder Singh, which was found to be simple. It is further submitted that moreover even as per version of the prosecution, it is a case of sudden fight. It is further submitted that only eye-witness has already been examined. However, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as other witnesses remain to be examined.

¶20

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Naresh Kumar.

¶21

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶22

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Sukhwinder Singh @Sonu is allowed.

¶23

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Tarn Taran.

¶24

May 16, 2013. ‘om’

¶25

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu 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

Gurbinder Singh @ Shinda Vs State of Punjab

Kasamdin Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Virender Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajnish Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Subhash Jain and Anr.