Allowed

Kuldeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2018CRM-M/23436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court granted bail noting that the investigation was complete, no prosecution witness was examined, and the trial would take time, serving no purpose to keep the petitioner in custody.

What did the court decide?

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

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-23436 of 2018 Date of decision: 17.11.2018

Kuldeep Kumar

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶13

This is the second petition filed by petitioner-Kuldeep Kumar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.36 dated 03.03.2018 registered under Sections 452, 306, 323, 379, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier petition was filed during pendency of investigation and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The present petition has been filed subsequently after conclusion of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under Section 323 IPC and while dismissing the bail application it was observed that it might be a case under Section 306 IPC. No suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased and even no office is made out under Section 306 IPC. DDR was recorded at the

¶15

NEETU RANI 2018.11.19 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

Criminal Misc. No. M-23436 of 2018 2

¶17

.....

¶18

instance of driver of the train by saying that it is a case of accident. Learned counsel also submits that challan has been presented and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, even a single witness has not been examined so far. The petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2018.

¶19

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period as well as stage of trial.

¶20

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.

¶21

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2018; out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, even a single witness has not been examined so far; the trial may take time to conclude; and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Kuldeep Kumar) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶22

17.11.2018 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No

¶23

NEETU RANI 2018.11.19 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Kuldeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar 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

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Karamveer and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Phuman Singh @ Virender Vs State of Haryana

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar @ Shina Vs State of Punjab