Allowed

Swaranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Mar 2014CRM-M/41502/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners booked under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC. The Petitioner joined the investigation and secured a compromise with the complainant involving payment of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond and conditions regarding investigation cooperation and truthfulness of the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, joining investigation as required, and abiding by S. 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Swaranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM-M-41502-2013, CRM-M-465-2014, and CRM-M-748-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: March 3, 2014

¶5

CRM-M-41502-2013:

Swaranjit Singh

…Petitioner

State of Punjab

Versus …Respondent

CRM-M-465-2014:

¶11

Gurnam Singh and another

¶12

...Petitioners Versus

¶13

State of Punjab

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

CRM-M-748-2014: Karnail Singh and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶21

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

¶22

Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State of Punjab.

¶23

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶24

This order shall dispose of aforementioned three petitions since the petitioner(s), namely, Swaranjit Singh (in CRMM-41502 of 2013); Gurnam Singh and Kulbir Singh (in CRM-M-465 of 2014; and Karnail Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Balwinder Singh & Kulwant Singh (in CRM-M-748 of 2014), have prayed for grant of

¶25

Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶26

CRM-M-41502-2013, CRM-M-465-2014, and CRM-M-748-2014

¶27

¶28

anticipatory bail, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 97, dated 16.10.2013, registered at Police Station, Khalchian, Police District Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.

¶29

Learned counsel contends that the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, is compoundable one. The petitioner(s) have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise with the complainant of the present case. He further submits that in consonance with the said compromise, the petitioner(s) have agreed to make payment of `7,00,000/- to the complainant of the present case and the said amount shall remain deposited with the Panchayat nominated by both the factions and the same would be handed over to the complainant after quashing of the FIR of the case in hand. He further contends that the petitioner(s) have joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency and, as such, their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Hira Singh of Police Station, Khalchian, Police District Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar, very fairly concedes that the petitioner(s) have joined the investigation and since both the private factions have sorted out their disputes and effected a compromise, their custodial interrogation would not be required in the case in hand.

¶31

Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶32

CRM-M-41502-2013, CRM-M-465-2014, and CRM-M-748-2014

¶33

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶35

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, all the three petitions, namely, CRM-M-41502 of 2013; CRM-M-465 of 2014 and CRM-M-748 of 2014, are allowed. In the event of their arrest, each one of the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

¶36

The petitioner(s) shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶37

In case the submission with regard to effecting of a compromise and the payment of a sum of `7,00,000/- to the complainant is found to be false, in that eventuality, the respondent State of Punjab or the complainant would be at liberty to move an application for withdrawal of the concession being granted to the petitioner(s) vide this order.

¶38

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the files of connected petitions.

¶39

March 3, 2014 Pkapoor

¶40

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶41

Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 15:58 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Swaranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaranjit 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

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Assa Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kitaba Vs State of Haryana

Anjana Kumari Vs State of Punjab

Sikander Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab