Allowed

Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2019CRM-M/3564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order short on details, the Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. It made the interim bail granted on 25.01.2019 absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., noting the petitioner had deposited a disputed amount and joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on 25.01.2019 was made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Sukhjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CRM-M No.3564 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.3564 of 2019 Decided on: 14.03.2019

Sukhjinder Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

¶10

Present : Mr. A.P.S. Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.87 dated 08.12.2018, registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

¶14

The operative part of the order dated 25.01.2019, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-

¶15

“.... Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit half of the disputed amount in the account of Gram Panchayat, Dharamkot Bagga, Block Batala within a period of 01 month from today.

¶16

Notice of motion for 14.03.2019 ....”

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

¶18

submitted that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. It is further submitted that the

¶19

MOHD YAKUB 2019.03.14 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M No.3564 of 2019

¶21

¶22

petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.3,19,168/- in the account of Gram Panchayat, Dharamkot Bagga, Block Batala.

¶23

Counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Bachittar Singh, has not disputed the factual position.

¶24

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2019 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 14.03.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶26

MOHD YAKUB 2019.03.14 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjinder 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

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chhinderpal @Surinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sanjeet Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Haryana

Akhtar Vs State of Haryana