Allowed

Jagtar Singh @ Taru & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2015CRM-M/25656/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was decided granting regular bail to petitioners Jagtar Singh alias Taru and Gurpreet Singh alias Banti accused of robbery. The court held that non-identification at the spot and parity with a released co-accused made continued detention unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Jagtar Singh @ Taru & Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 12^th August, 2015

¶4

Jagtar Singh @ Taru and another

� Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

� Respondent

�� 

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Ram K. Saini, Advocate

¶14

for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.

¶16

�� !��"��#

¶17

Allegations against the petitioners Jagtar Singh alias Taru and Gurpreet Singh alias Banti in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.8 dated 12.01.2015 registered at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala under Sections 394/34/120;B IPC, are that on 12.01.2015 the accused had robbed the complainant Manager of a Company of cash amounting to �12.00 lacs leading to registration of FIR and their arrest.

¶18

Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate that the petitioners are in custody since

¶19

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶20

¶21

��

¶22

09.02.2015 and that similarly placed co;accused Rajesh Kumar has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2015 have not been controverted by learned State counsel.

¶23

In view of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that they were neither identified on the spot at the time of occurrence and it is subsequently at a belated stage they have been apprehended and without adverting onto the merits of the case coupled with parity and the fact that the trial will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars in the present case. Accordingly, they are ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.

¶24

The present petition stands disposed off accordingly.

"�� #� ��

�$%$&'��!��

��

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.08.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Jagtar Singh @ Taru & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh @ Taru & Anr. v. State of Haryana

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

Case details

Similar cases

State (Food Inspector) Chandigarh Admn. Vs Rajan Arora

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Khem Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.