Allowed

Sanjeev Salwan @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Monu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2017CRM-M/10116/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners in a version and cross-version case arising from an FIR involving injury. The court held that since the trial would be long and the petitioners were not needed for custodial interrogation, granting bail served the necessary purpose.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions accepted; orders granting interim bail made absolute.

Sanjeev Salwan @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Monu Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(i) CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 (O&M)

¶3

Sanjeev Salwan alias Sanjiv Kumar alias Monu ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-10788 of 2017 (O&M)
Sudhir Salwan ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Date of Decision: April 21, 2017

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶5

Present: Mr.K.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ****

¶6

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶7

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.

¶8

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.08 dated 26.02.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 379, 341, 506 and 34 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur.

¶9

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶10

CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 and connected petition -2-

¶11

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶12

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

¶13

From the record, I find that it is a case of version and crossversion. Both the petitioners have also received injuries in the occurrence. It is to be decided by the trial Court, on the basis of evidence, as to who was the aggressor party. Petitioner Sanjeev Salwan is stated to be armed with kassi whereas petitioner Sudhir Salwan is stated to be armed with datar .

¶14

The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

¶15

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in CRM No.M-10116 of 2017 and order dated 30.03.2017 passed in CRM No.M-10788 of 2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

¶16

April 21, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶17

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sanjeev Salwan @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Monu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Salwan @ Sanjiv Kumar @ Monu 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

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs Lal Singh

Lalit Kataria Vs State of Haryana

Sudhir Salwan Vs State of Punjab

Daljeet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab