Allowed

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2018CRM-M/2421/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to an accused who had previously jumped bail and was declared a proclaimed offender. The grant was conditional on surrendering personal bonds, two local sureties with immovable property proof, a security deposit of Rs. 50,000, and adherence to strict undertakings regarding attendance, witness interference, and departure from India.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds from two local sureties with document proof, depositing Rs. 50,000 as security, and giving undertaking regarding attendance,

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M No. 2421 of 2018 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No. 2421 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.3.2018

¶4

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha

¶5

................Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Punjab

¶8

.................Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

¶10

Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate

¶11

for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

H. S. Madaan, J.

¶14

This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha an accused in FIR No. 16 dated 11.3.2011 for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 326 and 307 IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

¶15

Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution story are that the FIR in question was recorded on the basis of statement of complainant Angrej Singh s/o Ramji Dass, r/o Raghowal, Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, aged about 27 years, in which he

¶16

Banita Chugh 2018.03.12 18:27 I am the author of this document

¶17

CRM-M No. 2421 of 2018 -2-

¶18

stated that he had taken land on rent situated at village Tihara Passi Kandi road on rent, from Sohan Singh r/o Tihara for 20 years, where he had installed a saw mill; that on 23.2.2011, when complainant alongwith Ajay Kumar r/o Passi Kandi were present at his saw mill, then Khushmandeep Singh s/o Gurmail Singh r/o Passi Kandi, came there to pay money for logs; that at about 8 P.M., while the complainant was taking out his belongings from the room in the saw mill, whereas Ajay Kumar and Khushmandeep Singh were sitting outside in the tent , in the meanwhile, several persons armed with weapons of different types, which included the present petitioner came there and attacked the complainant causing him multiple injuries. The role attributed to the present petitioner Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha is that he had given two dattar blows on right leg, feet and right knee of the complainant; that when Khushmandeep Singh tried to intervene, he was also given injuries; that on an alarm having been raised by the injured and Ajay Kumar, the assailants had ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons, though while doing so, they broke window of the Bolero car of the complainant and took away Rs.52,000/- and some documents belonging to him.

¶19

The applicant was arrested in this case but released on bail. Subsequently, he jumped the bail and was declared as a proclaimed offender on 1.9.2014. He had approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed and he was directed to surrender in the trial Court and a direction was issued to the trial Court to dispose of the application for regular bail promptly. This order was passed on 17.11.2017 in CRM-M-43767-2017. The Banita Chugh 2018.03.12 18:27 I am the author of this document

¶20

CRM-M No. 2421 of 2018 -3-

¶21

petitioner is in custody since then.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had gone abroad in search of better prospects in the life. No recovery is to be effected from him. Therefore, he be granted regular bail.

¶23

This request is being opposed by the learned State counsel, stating that the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him to grant of regular bail.

¶24

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that though the conduct of the petitioner in jumping bail during the trial is something which is improper, however, keeping in view the fact that he has surrendered in the court himself and is behind the bars for the last more than three months and the conclusion of the trial against him is likely to take considerable time, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, though subject to stringent terms and conditions, so that he may not abscond again.

¶25

Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court which is two sound sureties, preferably two local persons having documentary proof of sufficient immovable properties within the local jurisdiction of such court, copies of title deeds of those properties be taken on record and then endorsement be made on the original title deeds that those persons had stood surety for the present petitioner . In addition to that a sum of Rs.50,000/- be deposited in the trial Court as security, which would stand forfeited to the State in Banita Chugh 2018.03.12 18:27 I am the author of this document

¶26

CRM-M No. 2421 of 2018 -4-

¶27

case the petitioner jumps the bail, otherwise on conclusion of the trial, it be released to the petitioner. Further more, he is to give an undertaking that he shall appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing; that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport.

¶28

In case the petitioner violates any term and condition on which the bail has been granted to him, this order shall be liable to be withdrawn.

¶29

( H.S. Madaan ) 12.3.2018 Judge chugh

¶30

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

¶31

Whether reportable Yes / No

¶32

Banita Chugh 2018.03.12 18:27 I am the author of this document

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durga Devi Vs State of Haryana

Sewa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Komal Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Harmanpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Vs Shiv Trading Co. etc.

Gian Singh Sarpanch Vs State of Punjab