Allowed

Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2017CRM-M/10097/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held there was merit in the petition given the documentary nature of the case and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Interim order granting bail made absolute; petitioner to join investigation when called upon and abide by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Naranjan Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-10097 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:26.4.2017

Naranjan Singh

.....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab

.....Respondent ....

Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.262 dated 29.6.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

¶14

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶15

Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

¶16

has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Namit Khurana, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and

¶18

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.04.27 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Misc. No.M-10097 of 2017

¶20

[2]

¶21

have gone through the record.

¶22

The complainant is aggrieved from the document executed in the year 1984-85 regarding the property purchased on 5.2.1981 and entry regarding the same had been mentioned or recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85. The case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. Nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner. He is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 24.3.2017 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

April 26, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶25

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.04.27 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naranjan 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

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Kumar Vs Jeeta

Gautam Vs State of Haryana

M/S Santa Singh Kulwant Singh and Anr. Vs M/S Ravindra Traders Commission Agent and Anr.

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmeet Singh Alias Sadhi Vs State of Punjab