Allowed

Shera Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2020CRM-M/3820/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail application for preponment and granted regular bail due to the completion of investigation, complicity lack of prosecution support post-complainant examination, and pendency due to COVID-19, discharging the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Shera Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

PANKAJ KUMAR -1- 2020.07.22 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CRM-M No.3820 of 2020 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.3820 of 2020 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision.22.07.2020 (Heard through VC)

Shera Singh

...Petitioner

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

-.-

¶15

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

¶16

CRM No.15982 of 2020

¶17

Prayer in the application is for preponment of the bail application, which is now listed for 10.09.2020.

¶18

With the consent of both the parties, the application is allowed and hearing of the main petition is preponed for today itself.

¶19

CRM-M No.3820 of 2020

¶20

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.68 dated 08.08.2017 under Sections 376, 511, 307, 450, 34 IPC(Sections 302, 201 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the complainant has been examined and in the cross-examination, he has not supported the version as set out by the prosecution. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 5.4.2019. The investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented, therefore, the

¶22

-2-

¶23

CRM-M No.3820 of 2020 (O&M)

¶24

petitioner is entitled to concession of bail.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes the regular bail while contending that no ground is made out for granting concession of regular bail. However, on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh, he does not dispute the fact that complainant has been examined.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

Keeping in view the fact that the complainant has been examined and he did not support the case of prosecution, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as due to COVID19 situation, Courts are not working at their full strength and not taking up regular hearing matters, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

¶28

	(J	AISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE
July 22, 2020
Pankaj*
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

Shera Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shera 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelam Bhati Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab

Salim Ansari Vs State of Ut, Chandigarh

Sombir @ Chand Vs State of Haryana

Sarabjit Singh @ Sarba Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Haryana