Allowed

Yadvinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2014CRM-M/41441/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was allowed by a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who granted release on bail to the petitioner who was detained since arrest and where investigation was complete but who was not armed or found firing at police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing of bail bonds.

Yadvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-41441 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-41441 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 10, 2014

Yadvinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab.

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., is for grant of bail to the petitioner,Yadvinder Singh @ Yadu, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 186, 307 and 353 read with Section 149, IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No.251, dated 27.09.2014, registered at Police Station, City, Kapurthala.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also the petitioner cannot be booked for the offences mentioned in the FIR; concededly, the petitioner was neither armed with any weapon nor he had fired shots on the police party; the motive, as depicted

¶16

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-41441 of 2014

¶18

[2]

¶19

from the prosecution case, was that the police attempted to stop the vehicle driven by Satpal Singh in which the petitioner was one of the occupants, therefore, the applicability of Section 149, IPC, would be a moot point during the course of trial; it has not come on record that the petitioner had the knowledge that Amrit Pal, the co-accused of the petitioner who had fired shots at the police, was in possession of a revolver; and that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Major Singh, Police Station, City, Kapurthala, very fairly concedes that the petitioner was neither armed with the firearm nor he fired any shot. He further concedes that the petitioner is behind the bars from 27.09.2014. He also concedes that the investigation qua the petitioner is complete.

¶21

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner Yadvinder Singh @ Yadu, s/o Darbara Singh, r/o village Harike, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of the present case subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶22

December 10, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶23

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Yadvinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadvinder 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

Jarnail Singh Vs Ramesh Chand

Asmeena Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal Vs State of Punjab

Monika and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Surjit Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dilnoza Vs State of Punjab