The court certified a pre-arrest bail application for the petitioner. Relying on the principle of parity because co-accused had already been granted bail in the same matter, the judge allowed the petition and made prior interim bail absolute.
Bail application allowed; interim bail order 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.
Crl.Misc.No.M-30476 of 2011(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-30476 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision:30.01.2013
Jagroop Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. S.P. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J
Jagroop Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail
in a case registered by way of FIR No. 153 dated 12.08.2011 at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, for an offence punishable under sections 408 and 120-B IPC.
The case against the petitioner Jagroop Singh and his co-accused Rajinder Singh and Harjit Singh is that the complainants Mohinder Singh and Hardeep Singh had purchased
Crl.Misc.No.M-30476 of 2011(O&M) 2
three trucks, out of which one was stolen by the petitioner and others and the others were being plied by them and they have misappropriated the trucks and their parts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the contents of the FIR, which is partly complaint of Hardeep Singh and Mohinder Singh and partly report of the enquiry conducted on their allegations. According to him, there is bonafide dispute between the parties, on account of which this court had granted pre-arrest bail to Rajinder Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner, vide order dated 20.09.2011. He has further submitted that the enquiry reports in the case are also contradictory. He has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. However, he does not deny the fact that Rajinder Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court in this very matter. He also does not deny grant of bail to the third accused Harjit Singh.
Since the case against all the three accused is at par and Rajinder Singh and Harjit Singh have been granted pre-arrest bail in this case, the petitioner cannot be denied the said
Crl.Misc.No.M-30476 of 2011(O&M) 3
concession as the case against three is at par. Consequently, on the ground of parity, I find the petitioner to be entitled to prearrest bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 05.10.2011 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
January 30,2013 dinesh
( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who have already been granted bail.
Jagroop Singh
State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
