This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a murder case was dismissed because the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not join the police inquiry as directed.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; presence of petitioner in investigation made compulsory.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-23027 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 23027 of 2015 Date of decision : 22.09.2015
Harmanjit Singh @ Harmanjot Singh
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Asst. AG, Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the complainant.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J .
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.128 dated 19.12.2014, registered under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar Rural.
Heard.
The name of the petitioner had cropped up in the investigation. Gurbhinder Singh deceased had returned from Italy, a month prior to the incident. Gurbhinder Singh had left his house in his car and had gone to take his mobile back from the present petitioner. He never returned. His body was found the next day in the Alto car parked by the side of the road. A complaint was given to the police.
The call details of the mobile phone of the deceased as well as the petitioner were collected and location of the mobile phone of the
SUNIL SEHGAL 2015.09.23 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
2
Crl. Misc. No.M-23027 of 2015
petitioner was found within one kilometre from each other.
The petitioner is a resident of Gurdaspur (Punjab) and his presence in the village at that hour was doubted. The petitioner had approached this Court for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was asked to join the investigation in July, 2015. The case was adjourned for a month. On the last hearing, the State counsel had informed that the petitioner was not cooperating and was not disclosing his presence elsewhere. The petitioner was again directed to join the investigation.
The State counsel informs that the petitioner has not joined the investigation.
The counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment for a fortnight. He states that the witness who has to support the statement of the petitioner is away.
The petitioner has failed to co-operate and has subsequently not joined the investigation. The allegations are serious; custodial interrogation would be necessary. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The petition is dismissed.
22.09.2015 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) sunil JUDGE
22.09.2015
SUNIL SEHGAL 2015.09.23 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and join the police inquiry.
Wheter a case for anticipatory bail is made out in a murder investigation where the accused has not joined the investigation.
Whether the allegations are serious enough to warrant a custodial interrogation and dismissal of the bail petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harmanjit Singh
State of Punjab
ANITA CHAUDHRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
