Allowed

Gurmeet Singh Alias Sadhi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2017CRM-M/1051/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Sections 379-B, 342, 323, 506, and 34 IPC. The court noted the petitioner has joined the investigation and ordered the interim bail to be made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim bail made absolute; conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. to be abided by.

Gurmeet Singh Alias Sadhi Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-1051 of 2017

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:26.4.2017

¶5

Gurmeet Singh alias Sadhi

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

.....Respondent ....

¶8

Present: Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

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

¶10

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶11

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.60 dated 2.8.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 379-B, 342, 323, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶12

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶13

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

¶14

has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

¶16

As per the allegations, simple injuries were given by the

¶17

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

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.M-1051 of 2017

¶19

[2]

¶20

petitioner and there is also allegation that the accused along with co-accused took away mobile and `5,000/- from the right pocket of the complainant.

¶21

From the record, I find that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from him. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

¶22

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 17.1.2017 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

Gurmeet Singh Alias Sadhi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Singh Alias Sadhi 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.

Naranjan Singh Vs State of Punjab