The single-judge High Court allowed two petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making interim bail absolute as no useful purpose would be served by custody pending long trial.
Petitions allowed; interim bail orders made absolute.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-11222 of 2017
.....
Date of decision:1.8.2017
Mandeep Kaur alias Manjit Kaur
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-11914 of 2017
.....
Amandeep Singh
.....Petitioner v.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2.
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.17 dated 12.4.2014 (Annexure-P.1) titled “Lakhvir Singh Vs.
Baldev Singh and others” instituted at the instance of the complainant-
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.02 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. Nos.M-11222 of 2017 etc. [2]
respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, wherein the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 302 IPC.
Notice of motion has been issued in these cases.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Harsh Chopra, learned Advocate appeared for the complainantrespondent No.2 and contested these petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that first of all in these cases the FIR was registered. The Police found the petitioners as innocent. Then complaint was filed and in the complaint case these petitioners have been summoned.
As per the allegations a push was given to the father of the complainant who fell etc. and died. The petitioners in view of the interim orders passed on 3.4.2017 and 7.4.2017 have already surrendered before the Court and they have been released on interim bail. The petitioners are not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. They are simply to face the trial in the present case. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. The trial of the case will take long time.
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 these petitions and the
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.02 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. Nos.M-11222 of 2017 etc.
[3]
same are allowed. The interim orders dated 3.4.2017 and 7.4.2017 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners are made absolute.
August 1, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.08.02 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in the pending trial.
Whether the interim bail granted earlier should be made absolute.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mandeep Kaur alias Manjit Kaur
Amandeep Singh
State of Punjab
Harpal Singh Parmar
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
