Allowed

Vir Singh @ Veeru v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Sept 2015CRM-M/22108/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused implicated only by general allegations in murder and related offences, noting absence of weapon attribution, no injury levelled, and co-accused already released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Vir Singh @ Veeru Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-22108 of 2015 Date of decision: 29.09.2015

Vir Singh @ Veeru

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes/No

¶10

2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes/No

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

¶12

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondent – State.

¶14

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner-Vir Singh @ Veeru for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.168 dated 04.08.2014 registered under Sections 307, 326, 336, 120-B, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR but no role has been attributed to him. He has been implicated on the basis of general allegations. The injured has been discharged from the hospital. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the present petitioner has been shown to be accompanied with co-accused, namely, Kewal, Happo, Vishal, Rajan,

¶17

NEETU RANI 2015.10.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-22108 of 2015

¶19

¶20

Raja, Harjit Singh and others but no specific injury has been attributed to him. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hardyal Singh has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. No. M-25923 of 2015 and has been released on regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2015. The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2014 and even a single witness has not been examined so far. The trial may take long time to conclude and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶21

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period but opposes grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that all persons were present and caused injuries to the injured.

¶22

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of the FIR.

¶23

As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of general allegations as neither he has been found to be armed with any specific weapon nor he has been attributed any injury. The petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2014 and even a single witness has not been examined so far. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Hardyal Singh, has been released on regular bail vide order dated 31.08.2015.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Vir Singh @ Veeru) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶25

29.09.2015 neetu

¶26

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶27

NEETU RANI 2015.10.06 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Vir Singh @ Veeru v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vir Singh @ Veeru 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

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jagroop Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shiv Ram Vs State of Haryana

Munni Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Taro & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.