Allowed

Sukhjeevan Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2014CRM-M/39689/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted the bail petition filed by Sukhjeevan Kaur under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court observed no role was attributed to the petitioner in main offences. Bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 were ordered to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial or duty court at Gurdaspur.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial or duty court.

Sukhjeevan Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

208

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-39689 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 15, 2014

Sukhjeevan Kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.105 dated 14.09.2014 under Sections 302, 376, 511, 201 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur, District Batala (Gurdaspur).

¶16

Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition.

¶17

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned State counsel admitted that no role VINEET GULATIhas been attributed to the petitioner in the main offences under 2014.12.15 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM No.M-39689 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

Section 302 IPC etc. The only allegation, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant, against the petitioner is under Section 201 IPC.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶22

The petitioner is a lady and she is in custody since 15.09.2014. No role has been attributed to the petitioner in the main offences nor there is allegation of criminal conspiracy. The presentation of challan and trial of the case will take long time. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case.

¶23

In view of the above discussion and without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Court, Gurdaspur.

¶24

December 15, 2014 Vgulati

¶25

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶26

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.15 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sukhjeevan Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjeevan Kaur 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

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baldev Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Palwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Bhupinder Kumar & Anr.

M/S Om Scaffolders Vs Divek Alu Glazing and Anr.

Nirmal Kumar Vs State of Punjab