Single-judge order granting absolute bail in a bail application under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, noting lack of need for custodial interrogation and already made interim order.
Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed; order dated 30.1.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-2739 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2013
Kulwinder Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anmol Grewal, AAG Punjab.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)
Kulwinder Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 11 dated 14.1.2012 at Police Statioin Basti Jodhewal, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 36(1), 3,6,9 and 15 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his co-accused are alleged to have carved out a colony and sold plots in the years 2003 and 2004. According to him, the complaint against them was made by the Chief Administrator, GLADA in the year 2004 itself. He further submits that the FIR thereon has been lodged in the year 2012. He further submits that the offence has got the maximum sentence of three years and the cognizance of this offence was barred in the year 2012. He further submits that the case is based on
Crl. Misc. No.M-2739 of 2013 =2=
documentary evidence and all the documents relating to this offence are with the police. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of order dated 30.1.2013. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for investigation of this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and his co-accused carved out a colony in contravention of the law and without the permission of the State. According to her, they do not make the payment of charges of change of land use.
It is a case based on documentary evidence. It is a fact that the sales were made in the years 2003 and 2004 and the FIR has been registered only in January 2012. As all the documents relating to the case are with the police, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for investigation of this case. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 30.1.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
May 08, 2013 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act where the maximum sentence is three years, cognizance was barred, and custodial i
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulwinder Singh
State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
