Allowed

Anoop Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2017CRM-M/39379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to three petitioners accused of offences under Section 364 IPC and the Arms Act, subject to standard conditions including availability for interrogation and no inducement.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; anticipatory bail granted till presentation of challan subject to four terms including availability for interrogation.

Anoop Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-39379-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. CRM-M-39379-2016 Date of Decision : 09.01.2017 Anoop Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM-M-40129-2016 Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 3. CRM-M-40617-2016 Parminder Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶6

Present: Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for petitioners in CRM-39379 of 2016 & CRM-M-40617-2016.

¶7

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M-40129-2016.

¶8

Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

¶9

SURINDER GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶10

The present petitions have been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 42 dated 22.09.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 364 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Jitender Kumar 2017.01.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CRM-M-39379-2016

¶14

-2-

¶15

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Kulwinder Singh submits that petitioners, namely, Anoop Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Parminder Singh have not been named as accused in other case registered under Section 307 IPC bearing FIR No. 33 dated 22.09.2016 at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan. Petitioners have joined the investigation and were released on bail as per orders dated 07.11.2016, 10.11.2016 and 15.11.2016 passed in respective petitions. She further submits on instructions that their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶16

In view of submissions of learned State counsel and without expressing any opinion on merits of the cases, these petitions are allowed and orders dated 07.11.2016, 10.11.2016 and 15.11.2016 passed in respective petitions are made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶17

(i) that petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶18

(ii) that petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) that petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶20

(iv) that petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.

¶21

January 09, 2017

¶22

¶23

( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶24

Jitender Kumar 2017.01.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anoop Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Jatinder Kumar & Anr. Vs Sushil Kumar

M/S Subash Book Depot Thr Prop Subash Bhatia Vs Puneet Sanan

Kailash Chand Bansal Vs Ritu Mittal and Others

Hari Shanker Tibrewala Vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Sood Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.