The Supreme Court or High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that given the gravity of the alleged offences and the petitioner's role as a main accused, it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
No anticipatory bail granted. Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
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
Criminal Misc. No.M-11348 of 2017
Date of decision:7.4.2017
Dharam Singh
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent ....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Inderjit Singh, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.163 dated 8.12.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 306 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.
Notice of motion was issued in this case.
Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that the FIR has been got registered by
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-11348 of 2017
[2]
Gurcharan Singh alias Kala against the present petitioner. The son of the complainant, namely, Bawa Singh, who was working as a labourer had to take an amount of 35,000/- from the petitioner. The son of the complainant when demanded the amount, exchange of words took place. Further the present petitioner, who was cultivating the land of Khindo, also levelled allegations of causing loss to their transformer and in the Panchayat the matter was taken up where it was ordered to pay 4,000/-. It is in the FIR that Dharam Singh and Khindo threatened the son of the complainant, Bawa Singh. Bawa Singh was under tension due to false allegations and he left the house at about 7.30 p.m. On the next morning, he was found hanging on the guava tree in the field.
Keeping in view nature and gravity of the offences and the petitioner being one of the main accused, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is
dismissed.
April 7, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No
Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.04.07 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the gravity of the offences and his role as a main accused.
Whether the facts suggest that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in a murder by suicide charge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharam Singh
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
