Allowed

Maninder Pal Singh Alias Maninderjit Singh Alias Bittu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Nov 2021CRM-M/34605/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. Court allowed bail noting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required and co-accused were admitted to bail based on similar police submissions, applying M.C. Abraham.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail upon furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the complete satisfaction of the learned trial court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Maninder Pal Singh Alias Maninderjit Singh Alias… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-34605 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

108 CRM-M-34605 of 2021 Date of decision:23.11.2021

¶5

Maninder Pal Singh @ Maninderjit Singh @ Bittu

... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.

¶11

Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.M.S.Nagra, AAG, Punjab

¶12

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular

¶14

bail' under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.119, dated 20.11.2019, having been registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342/364/365/384/420/465/468/471/120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶15

On 28.9.2021 the following order had been passed in this case:-

¶16

“Case heard via video conferencing.

¶17

A detailed reply be filed by a gazetted officer in reply to

¶18

the petition.

¶19

Adjourned to 10.11.2021.

¶20

It is to be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

has submitted that 8 other co-accused of the petitioner have

¶22

PRAVEEN KUMAR 2021.11.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-34605 of 2021

¶24

¶25

been admitted to bail by this court.

¶26

It is seen in fact that those petitions were disposed of on 16.08.2021 by this very Bench on a statement made by learned State counsel (on instructions from the investigating officer), that their custodial interrogation was not required, they having been admitted to interim bail by this court (co-ordinate Bench) earlier in a petition filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶27

Hence, with the investigating officer having made a statement to the effect that their custodial interrogation is not required, obviously as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649, this court was bound to allow those petitions, as regards grant of bail is concerned.

¶28

However, as regards the present petitioners' role in the occurrence, the State would file a reply on merits.”

¶29

Thereafter, a reply dated 8.11.2021 has been filed to the petition by the DSP, Rajpura, in which it is stated that the petitioner was found to be the person who had driven the car of one Faqir Chand (co-accused) in which the complainant is alleged to have been abducted from Kundli (District Sonepat, Haryana), and brought to Punjab.

¶30

It has also been stated that the petitioner was arrested on 2.5.2021 and that the report under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. has been submitted arraigning him as an accused, with the trial still to commence.

¶31

Keeping in view the period of custody and the fact that the

¶32

PRAVEEN KUMAR 2021.11.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M-34605 of 2021

¶34

¶35

petitioners' custodial interrogation is not required, and the instructions of learned State counsel being that there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case whatsoever, the petition is allowed, with the petitioner ordered to be admitted to bail, upon him furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the complete satisfaction of the learned trial court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶36

23.11.2021 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) pk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶37

PRAVEEN KUMAR 2021.11.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Maninder Pal Singh Alias Maninderjit Singh Alias Bittu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninder Pal Singh Alias Maninderjit Singh Alias Bittu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeevan Alias Kokla Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Dilbag Masih Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Singh @ Mota Vs State of Punjab

Om Parkash Vs State of Punjab

Santosh Parshad and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another