Allowed

Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Nov 2013CRM-M/38599/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, Rajinder Singh, accused of inflicting injuries that led to a miscarriage. The court held that no specific offence was made out against him due to vague allegations and that his continued custody served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-38599 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-38599 of 2013 Date of decision: 21.11.2013.

Rajinder Singh

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab for the respondent – State.

¶12

Mr. N.S. Diwana, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner-Rajinder Singh for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.122 dated 04.09.2013, under Sections 316, 452, 342, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana (Rural).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence is made out under the aforesaid sections as no specific allegation has been made against the present petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he gave ' Soti' blow on the back of the complainant and only on the basis of general and vague allegations, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. The offence under

¶16

Rani Neetu 2013.11.22 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-38599 of 2013

¶18

¶19

Section 316 IPC has been added just to make it more serious and offence under Section 452 IPC is not made out as the owner of the house is Kanwaljit Kaur and said Kanwaljit Kaur has also been ousted by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2013 and trial will take some time in conclusion as even challan has not been presented so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to join the proceedings or Court proceedings as and when required.

¶20

Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of ownership of the house as well as the nature of injury.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail of the petitioner only on the ground that foetus, which was of four months, was aborted because of the injuries.

¶22

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also keeping in view the allegation against the petitioner i.e., only ' Soti' blow on the back of the complainant; and the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2013; and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Rajinder Singh) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate.

¶23

21.11.2013 neetu

¶24

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶25

Rani Neetu 2013.11.22 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder 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

Gurjit Singh Vs Pb. State Inds. Dev. Corpn Ltd.

Rana Gurjit Singh Vs Punjab Stae Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

Suresh Kumar @ Bitu Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Bansal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Jai Kumar Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Megha Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab