Allowed

Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Apr 2013CRM-M/2629/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of two petitions for anticipatory bail. Considering the petitioners' undertaking to pay the equivalent value of the alleged entrustment of gold articles, the Court made interim bail absolute subject to CrPC Section 438(2) conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted in earlier orders was made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., including payment of gold value within 10 days.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-2629 and 8762 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-2629 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.04.2013

Mithu Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

AND

CRM No.M-8762 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.04.2013

Mohinder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶18

Present: Mr. H.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶19

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Sarwan Singh.

¶20

Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for Mr. H.S. Jalal, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶21

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶22

Both the above noted petitions are being disposed of by this

¶23

common judgment, having arisen out of the same FIR.

¶24

CRM No.M-2629 and 8762 of 2013 (O&M)

¶25

-2-

¶26

The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.44 dated 12.12.2012, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 494, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC'), registered at Police Station Women Cell, Bathinda.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners disinherited their son, Jagseer Singh, the husband of the complainant, on 16.10.2006, whereas the marriage in question was solemnized on 24.04.2010. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not attend the marriage of their son. The learned counsel further submits that the go-between, Sita Devi, against whom, the allegations of similar entrustment have been made, has returned the articles and has been admitted to bail by the trial Court.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail petition on the ground that recovery of gold articles is yet to be effected.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

The allegation against both the petitioners is of entrustment of gold rings weighing 5 grams to each of them. The learned counsel for the petitioners offers to make the payment of the value equivalent to 10 grams (5 grams in each petition) of gold to the Investigating Officer, within 10 days from today.

¶31

CRM No.M-2629 and 8762 of 2013 (O&M)

¶32

-3-

¶33

In view of the above statement, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2013 and 19.03.2013, to the petitioners, Mithu Singh and Mohinder Kaur, respectively, is made absolute, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶34

However, it is made clear that if the payment is not made within the stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be withdrawn, without further notice.

¶35

The petitions stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

12.04.2013

¶37

atulsethi

¶38

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶39

Note : Whether to be referred to the reporter ? Yes / No.

Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithu 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

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Satwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Alias Rana Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dharampal Vs State of Haryana

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.