Allowed

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Mar 2017CRM-M/4030/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge order granting regular bail to petitioner Avtar Singh for offences under IPC 302/304/149. Court allowed petition without expressing opinion on merits as no specific injury attributed to petitioner. Bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent Magistrate.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-4030-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-4030 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 09, 2017.

¶5

Avtar Singh

¶6

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

........RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Mr. Ashish Sanghi, D.A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for complainant.

¶14

¶15

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.82 dated 06.05.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code( for short-IPC) (later on converted to Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC), at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that cause of death of Teja Singh was cardiac arrest. As per version of the occurrence Sachin Mehta 2017.03.10 14:34 recorded in the FIR, petitioner and his co-accused gave pushes to the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶19

CRM-M-4030-2017

¶20

-2-

¶21

deceased as a result of which, he fell down. In the supplementary statement of complainant recorded by the police, injuries were caused to the deceased by Manjinder Singh, Tejinder Singh and Varinder Singh @ Vicky. Avtar Singh has not been attributed any specific injury to the deceased.

¶22

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant submit that Avtar Singh is the main accused through whom Teja Singhhusband of complainant, who is non-resident Indian, has given his land for cultivation to one Suleman. It was at the behest of Avtar Singh that Teja Singh was given pushes and injuries, which resulted in his death.

¶23

I have perused the police file with the assistance of learned State counsel and found that in both version regarding the occurrence i.e. one contained in the FIR and the second as per supplementary statement of the complainant, no specific injury caused to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner. It is a matter to be seen and decided on the basis of evidence as to which version is correct and what role of petitioner is made out, if any. Even while appearing as PW1, complainant has not attributed any injury to petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in this case n 06.05.2016.

¶24

Keeping in view the above facts but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner Avtar Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:-

¶25

a. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

¶26

b. In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit

¶27

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶28

CRM-M-4030-2017

¶29

-3-

¶30

of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel his bail bond and surety bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶31

c. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

¶32

March 09, 2017

¶33

( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶34

Sachin M.

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶36

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar 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

Manoj @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Prince @ Chintu Vs State of Haryana

Navneet Kansal Vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Uppal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab