Allowed

Raj v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2013CRM-M/34353/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed bail to two petitioners charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that petitioners, absent from the initial FIR and involved only in later incident statements, were not liable for deaths and should be released on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety each in like amount.

Raj Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-34353 of 2012 Crl. Misc No.M-35951 of 2012

¶2

----1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

1- Crl. Misc. No.M-34353 of 2012 Date of Decision: 11.01.2013 Raj ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent 2- Crl. Misc. No.M- 35951 of2012 Date of Decision: 11.01.2013 Kuldip Masih ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab .... Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶6

Present:Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Ms. Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab for the State.

¶8

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶9

Raj and Kuldip Masih, the petitioners, by way of the above mentioned two petitions, have sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.100 dated 07.08.2012 at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur, for an offence punishable under sections 304 read with section 34 IPC.

¶10

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-34353 of 2012 Crl. Misc No.M-35951 of 2012 ----2--

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. According to him, in the FIR Kali Masih, the complainant levelled allegations against Kamla and her son Ladoo of serving the deceased with country made liquor laced with some substance to increase its effect. According to him, name of Raj came subsequently in the statement of Sahbi, who claimed to have taken liquor from Raj and to have suffered some symptoms suffered by the deceased. He has further submitted that name of Kuldip Masih surfaced in the statement of Savinder Singh, who also told the police that he took liquor from Kuldip Masih and he also suffered same symptoms as were suffered by the deceased.

¶12

It is necessary to mention here itself that Sahbi and Savinder Singh did not die, nor they had to struggle for life.

¶13

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Raj and Kuldip Masih have been in connivance with Kamla and Ladoo in preparing the liquor and selling the same on account of which three persons have died. According to her, the petitioners had been hand in glove with Kamla and Ladoo and, therefore, they are not entitled to bail.

¶14

The allegations in the FIR are quite specific against Kamla and Ladoo. Father of the complainant, who subsequently died, told him that he had taken liquor from these persons. He did

¶15

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-34353 of 2012 Crl. Misc No.M-35951 of 2012 ----3--

¶16

not name the petitioners as having taken liquor from them. The other persons, who lost their lives are also not stated to have taken liquor from the petitioners. There is nothing on record to suggest a link between Kamla and Ladoo on the one hand and Raj and Kuldip Masih, on the other hand. There is nothing on the record to show that the two sets of persons had been sharing the liquor or that they were preparing it together. The liquor allegedly given to Sahbi and Savinder Singh did not prove fatal and the lives of those persons were never in danger on consuming the same.

¶17

In these circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners, who are in custody for the last more than five months, to be entitled to bail. Hence, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.50,000/with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.

¶18

January 11, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Raj v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Kamal Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdeep Rai Vs State of Punjab

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kuldip Masih Vs State of Punjab

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab