Dismissed

Surjit Singh @ Goli v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2020CRM-M/21510/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding that the petitioner, being the main accused with a prior conviction and propensity to abscond, could not be treated on parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to have withdrawal of the petition.',

Surjit Singh @ Goli Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-21510 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-21510 of 2020 Date of Decision: 11.08.2020

Surjit Singh @ Goli

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶11

Present:Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Case has been taken up for hearing through videoconferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

¶14

Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.153 dated 10.08.2017 registered under Sections 353, 186, 332, 224, 225, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad (West), District Fazilka.

¶15

According to prosecution, Head Constable Sawar Singh (complainant) posted in PO Staff, Fazilka, when went to arrest petitioner, a proclaimed offender, at his house in case FIR No.132 of 2014 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, he came to know that petitioner was sitting at the house of Chand Singh Fauji. Consequently, Head Constable Sawar Singh conducted raid at the

¶16

RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.13 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM-M-21510 of 2020

¶19

house of Chand Singh Fauji, where Rakesh Singh and his accomplice Ramesh, Bhola Bhi (first wife of petitioner-accused Surjeet Singh), his second wife, Malkit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Manak Singh raising lalkara confined the complainant in illegal custody and insulted him by throwing his turban. Petitioner was got released by aforesaid accused and he ran away.

¶20

Learned counsel inter alia contends that four co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Kirna Rani alias Bholla Bai, Manjit Kaur (CRM-M-12160 of 2018), Ramesh Singh @ Meshi (CRM-M-37185 of 2019) and Rakesh Singh (CRM-M-20082 of 2020) have been granted anticipatory and interim bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.07.2018, 17.01.2020 and 23.07.2020, respectively. Treating the case of the petitioner on the same parity as that of his aforesaid coaccused, he may also be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner submitting that petitioner is a habitual offender. He is found involved in two cases under the NDPS Act, one under the Excise Act and one under Sections 380, 427, 506 IPC, out of which he has been convicted in one case for ten years. During parole he absconded, forcing the police authorities to get him declared proclaimed offender from the Court. When the police went to arrest him, he ran away from the spot with the help of his aforesaid co-accused.

¶22

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival

¶23

RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.13 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

-3-

¶25

CRM-M-21510 of 2020

¶26

submissions, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner inasmuch as he is the main accused on whose behalf incident took place. Co-accused of the petitioner have been granted anticipatory bail, regular bail or interim bail on account of the fact that they are not involved in any other criminal case, whereas petitioner is convicted in one case. Thus, his case cannot be treated on the same parity as that of his aforesaid co-accused.

¶27

Dismissed.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for

¶29

withdrawal of this petition.

¶30

(RAMENDRA JAIN)

¶31

August 11, 2020 R.S.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶34

RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.13 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surjit Singh @ Goli v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh @ Goli 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

Gurpreet Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab

Harsh @ Harshit Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Kumar @ Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh Chaudhary Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar @ Bhola Vs State of Haryana

Raj Kumar Alias Bhola Vs State of Haryana