Allowed

Nirmal Singh v. Gurdeep Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Oct 2013CRM-M/21386/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a complaint case involving criminal injuries and subsequent compromise, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the petitioner's application for regular bail. The court granted the bail to be secured before the CJM/Duty Magistrate without expressing an opinion on the merits regarding the alleged injuries.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail allowed; bail to be secured to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

Nirmal Singh Vs Gurdeep Singh — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-21386 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-21386 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: October 24, 2013.

¶6

Nirmal Singh

¶7

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Gurdeep Singh

¶10

..........RESPONDENT(s).

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. S.S. Goraya, Advocate with Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Respondent-complainant in person with Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439

¶17

of the Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint case No.128A dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial

¶18

Magistrate 1^st Class, Kapurthala.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

¶20

the record.

¶21

Mehta Sachin 2013.10.25 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶22

CRM No.M-21386 of 2013

¶23

-2-

¶24

Briefly stated, allegations against the present petitioner are that he alongwith co-accused attacked son of complainant. Co-accused Gurpreet Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of Gaganjeet Singh i.e. son of complainant. Co-accused Manjit Singh gave a sua blow which hit on the nose of complainant's son. Present petitioner-accused Nimal Singh gave two dang blows on his head.

¶25

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a complaint case and petitioner has been continuing in custody since 8.4.2013 and that dispute has since been settled with the complainant vide compromise, Annexure P-3.

¶26

It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondentcomplainant that since the dispute has been settled, the respondent is having no objection if the concession of bail is granted to the petitioneraccused. He has also filed reply by way of affidavit of respondentcomplainant in this regard.

¶27

Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Nirmal Singh is allowed.

¶28

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶29

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 24, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M.

¶30

Mehta Sachin 2013.10.25 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Nirmal Singh v. Gurdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh v. Gurdeep Singh

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

Harjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Lakhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Charan Singh Jaswal & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parveen Vs State of Haryana

Sumer Chand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.