Allowed

Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2018CRM-M/17235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Daya Chaudhary allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. granting regular bail to the petitioner accused in a murder case. The court noted all material witnesses were examined, no specific injury was linked to him, and co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-17235 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2018

¶3

Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab for the respondent -State.

¶11

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶13

Criminal Misc. No.38996 of 2018

¶14

This application has been moved for placing on record Annexures P-3 and P-4.

¶15

Application is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on

¶16

record.

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-17235 of 2018

¶18

The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.80 dated 27.08.2016 registered under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B IPC at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa during pendency of the trial.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case on the basis of general allegations.

¶20

NEETU RANI 2018.11.28 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

Criminal Misc. No. M-17235 of 2018 (O&M) 2 .....

¶22

Complainant-Makhan Singh and two more eye witnesses, namely, Balwinder Kaur and Parvinder Singh @ Parri, have been examined and all the three witnesses including the injured have not stated in their statements that any specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that even as per MLR, all the injuries are blunt and no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2016. Seven co-accused have been released on regular bail. Learned counsel also submits that all the material witnesses have been examined as out of total 31 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have been examined. Still trial may take time to conclude. No purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶23

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period as well as examination of material witnesses and the fact that seven co-accused have been released on regular bail. Learned State counsel has opposed grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that not only the petitioner was named but he was armed with iron rod also and injury has been caused. Learned State counsel has not specified as to which injury has been attributed to the present petitioner as multiple injuries were there, which were caused by the accused persons.

¶24

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.

¶25

Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2016. Out of total 31 prosecution witnesses, 18 witnesses have been examined. Meaning thereby, all the material witnesses have been examined. No

¶26

NEETU RANI 2018.11.28 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶27

Criminal Misc. No. M-17235 of 2018 (O&M) 3

¶28

specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Seven co-accused have been released on regular bail. The trial may take time to conclude and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶30

26.11.2018		(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
	Whether Reportable	Yes

¶31

NEETU RANI 2018.11.28 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satgur Singh @ Dhiana Panch 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

Manpreet Singh @ Manni Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sital Chand Vs State of Haryana & Others

Rupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab