Allowed

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2013CRM-M/26903/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR regarding forgery and cheating. The petition, invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C., was allowed as the petitioner joined investigation and case facts mirrored a prior allowed petition.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted on August 19, 2013, was made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and cooperation in investigation.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-26903 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-26903 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 06.09.2013

Gurmail Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioner-Gurmail Singh son of Kaka Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.20 dated 25.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail

¶18

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-26903 of 2013

¶20

¶21

deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on August 19, 2013: -

¶23

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner has only entered the mutation of the Estate of Pakhar Singh son of Jawahara Singh, in natural succession, in discharge of his official duty, which was subsequently sanctioned by A.C. 2nd Grade, Rampura Phul. No other specific role or overtact is attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-21349 of 2013 (Annexure P-9).

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 06.09.2013. 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 ` 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

¶26

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Bharpur 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. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, Dulla Singh, who is the main beneficiary, in pursuance of the impugned mutation has not been arrayed an accused, by the police, for the reasons best known to it. It is not a matter of dispute that Gurcharan Singh son of Dulla Singh, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, by this Court, by way of order dated 26.07.2013 in CRM-M No. 21349 of 2013 (Annexure P-9). In that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner, under the same set of circumstances. All the offences alleged against the accused are

¶27

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CRM No.M-26903 of 2013 3

¶29

triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶30

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 virtue of order dated August 19, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶31

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 respect.

¶32

September 06, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶33

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmail 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh @ Tita Vs State of Punjab

Jit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Raj Kaur @ Rani Vs State of Punjab

Shakti Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pishora Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana