Allowed

Gurbhej Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2013CRM-M/6461/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted regular bail to two petitioners, Gurbhej Singh and Milkha Singh, involved in a case under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The court considered the lack of overt acts attributed to them and the conclusion that further investigation was unnecessary, ordering their release subject to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

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

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Date of decision: 25.3.2013

¶3

Criminal Misc. No.M- 6461 of 2013 (O&M)

Gurbhej Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

¶9

Criminal Misc. No.M- 9396 of 2013 (O&M)

Milkha Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶16

Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No. 6461 of 2013.

¶17

Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate,

¶18

for the petitioner in CRM-M No. 9396 of 2013.

¶19

Mr.K.D.S Sidhu, Addl.A.G.Punjab

¶20

¶21

SABINA, J.

¶22

Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would

¶23

be disposed of as the petitioners have prayed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 67 dated 25.12.2012, under Sections 307, 399, 402, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Sections 25, 27, 29, 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at

¶24

Criminal Misc. No.M- 6461 of 2013 (O&M) Criminal Misc. No.M- 9396 of 2013 (O&M)

¶25

-2

¶26

Police Station Matewal, Amritsar (Rural) District Amritsar.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioner Gurbhej Singh is in custody since 28.12.2012, whereas, petitioner Milkha Singh is in custody since 8.1.2013. Learned counsel have further submitted that no overt act was attributed to the petitioners. In fact, it was a case of no injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that challan has already been presented and petitioners are not required for further investigation.

¶28

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions but has failed to controvert the factual aspect of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the petitioners on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Amritsar.

¶31

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶32

March 25, 2013 anita

Gurbhej Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurbhej 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

M/S Cargo Carrier Vs Haryana State Co.Op. Supply & Anr.

Chakarpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

M/S Citicorp Finance Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jin Sung Gyu & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Seema Singla and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Raman Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.