Allowed

Rupinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2018CRM-M/37072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Chandigarh examined a petition for anticipatory bail in an FIR involving offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 295-A, 148, 149, and 506 IPC. The court granted the relief without detailed discussion on merits, keeping the petitioner on bail.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail order made absolute; petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to appearing for investigation and complying with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Rupinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-37072 of 2018

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:03.10.2018

Rupinder Pal Singh

.....Petitioner

.....Respondent

Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶10

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

¶11

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.48 dated 5.8.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 295-A, 148, 149 and 506 IPC and (Section 326 IPC, which was added later on) at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala.

¶14

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶15

Mr. V.G. Jauhar, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. L.S. Sidhu, learned Advocate appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned

¶17

State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶18

From the record, I find that the present petitioner is stated to be

¶19

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.04 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

Cr. Misc. No.M-37072 of 2018

¶22

armed with a sword and two injuries have been attributed to him with sword. A perusal of the record shows that injury No.1 is stated to an abrasion on the forehead which cannot be caused with sharp edged weapon. As regards injury No.2, it is an incised wound on the forearm. This injury is stated to be simple. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 28.8.2018 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

October 03, 2018. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶25

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.04 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rupinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupinder Pal 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

M/S S.B. Packagings Ltd. Vs Sh. Rajan Gupta, IAS and Others

Balwinder Singh Dhanoa Vs Hussan Lal and Ors.

Karmbir Singh and Others Vs B.S. Sandhu Ips, the Director General of Police Haryana Sector -6, Panchkula

Ram Shah and Ors. Vs S. Lal Singh

Kami Singh Phogat Vs Ram Niwas and Another

M/S Kuldeep Sharma & Company Vs Ajit Bala Ji Joshi