Allowed

Chanpreet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2014CRM-M/8641/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing charges of attempted murder and arms possession. The Court allowed the petitions noting a compromise between parties and non-vital injuries, converting existing interim bail orders into absolute bail without detailed merits analysis.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; interim bail orders made absolute.

Chanpreet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

202

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(1) CRM No.M-8641 of 2014

¶4

Chanpreet Singh and another

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus ...Respondents (2) CRM No.M-12233 of 2014

¶7

State of Punjab and another

Subeg Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of decision: December 04, 2014

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶15

Present: Mr.Vaibhan Narang, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶19

This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions i.e. CRM No.M-8641 of 2014 filed by petitioners Charanpreet Singh and Gurjit Singh and CRM No.M-12233 of 2014 filed by petitioner Subeg Singh, in which they seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.114 dated 10.09.2013 under Sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Lopoke, District

¶20

Amritsar Rural.

¶21

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.08 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CRM No.M-8641 of 2014 and connected case

¶23

-2-

¶24

Notice of motion was issued in both the petitions and learned State counsel appeared and contested these petitions. However, notice issued to respondent No.2 in CRM No.8641 of 2014 has been received back un-served for want of complete address. Learned counsel for the petitioner gave up respondent No.2 as it is a State case.

¶25

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

¶26

From the record, I find that a compromise is stated to have already been effected between the parties. The fire arm injury is stated to be on palm i.e. non-vital part of the body. The petitioners have already joined the investigation.

¶27

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 11.03.2014 passed in CRM No.M-8641 of 2014 and order dated 11.04.2014 passed in CRM No.M-12233 of 2014 granting interim bail to the petitioners are made absolute.

¶28

December 04, 2014 Vgulati

¶29

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶30

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.08 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Chanpreet Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanpreet Singh and Anr. 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

Kaka Singh etc. Vs Hardip Singh etc.

Daya Singh Vs Avtar Singh

Tejvir Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Ors.

Mahavir Kumar and Anr. Vs Ramandeep Singh

Raj Kumar Vs Chander Shekhar & Ors.

M/S Gill Commission Agent Vs Paramjit Singh