The High Court accepted the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the petition deserved acceptance in the given context. Consequently, the interim provisional bail already granted by this Court on April 09, 2014, was made absolute.
The interim provisional bail granted on April 09, 2014, was 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.
CRM-M No. 11520 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-11520 of 2014 Date of decision : 23.04.2014
Satnam Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Satnam Singh son of Bhan Singh, has preferred the
instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against him along with his brother and other co-accused, vide FIR No.73 dated 07.07.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 431 IPC, by the police of Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran.
the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the
Sumit Kumar 2014.04.23 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
CRM-M No. 11520 of 2014
entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
was passed by this Court on April 09, 2014:-
“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the police has registered a false case on the complaint of complainant Dayal Kishan Sharma, SDO, PWD with the allegations that the petitioner along with his brother and other co-accused Buta Singh, has taken away the stones from the road to their house. Initially, the case was investigated, the allegations contained in it were found to be false and the cancellation report was submitted but the same was not accepted by the Magistrate. The argument is that since the petitioner was under the bona-fide belief that the case has already been cancelled, so, he did not appear in the Court.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 23.04.2014.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail, on his filing a specific affidavit that he will regularly attend the proceedings in the trial Court in future and furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.”
23.04.2014
sumit.k
( M ehinder S ingh S ullar) Judge
Sumit Kumar 2014.04.23 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. deserves to be accepted.
Whether the interim bail already granted by the Court should be made absolute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satnam Singh
State of Punjab
Mehinder Singh Sullan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
