Allowed

Khajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2013CRM-M/19704/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court accepted the petition for regular bail, noting the petitioner is in custody since June 2012, no witnesses have been examined, and further detention serves no useful purpose, subject to furnishing surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-19704 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-19704 of 2013 Date of Decision: 09.09.2013

Khajan Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioner-Khajan Singh son of Madha Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.72 dated 15.05.2008, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338, 304, 325 and 323 IPC, by the police of Police Station Chabhai, District Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶18

through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration

¶19

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-19704 of 2013 -2-

¶21

of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner was earlier granted bail in this case by the trial Court. Subsequently, he did not appear and the trial Court declared him proclaimed offender.

¶23

Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 29.06.2012. 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. Since, not even a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶24

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of 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.

¶25

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 only.

¶26

September 09, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶27

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Khajan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajan Singh 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

Shakti Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pishora Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Seema Rani Vs State of Haryana

Lovejit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab