Disposed

Akashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2021CRM-M/5558/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two pre-arrest bail petitions filed under the IPC. The Court held that the petitions have become infructuous as the investigating agency does not require custodial interrogation. Petitioners were granted a 10-day notice before any future arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed as infructuous due to lack of need for custodial interrogation; 10-day notice before future arrest granted.

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision: 22.03.2021 202/2) CRM-M-5558 of 2021 Akashdeep Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent 2) CRM-M-7528 of 2021 Sakattar Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶4

Present:Mr. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr S.S. Deol, DAG, Punjab

¶5

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral)

¶6

Case heard by way of video conferencing.

¶7

By these two petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail, upon a cross case registered vide Report No.29, dated 06.03.2018, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 and 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Sadar, District Tarn Taran, (in case FIR no.116, dated 01.07.2017, registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 and 34 of the IPC, at the same police station).

¶8

Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that pursuant to the orders passed in these petitions earlier, all the petitioners have joined investigation and presently their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶9

That being so, without making any comment on the actual

¶10

VIKAS CHANDER 2021.03.23 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶11

202/2)

¶12

-2-

¶13

merits of the case, whatsoever, since the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, these petitions have in fact been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.

¶14

However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, they would be given 10 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon them.

¶15

Naturally, if the complainant in the cross case is aggrieved in any manner, of lack of proper investigation, he/she would be always at liberty to avail of his/her remedy as per law.

¶16

A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other matter

¶17

too.

¶18

22.03.2021 vcgarg

¶19

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶20

Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶21

VIKAS CHANDER 2021.03.23 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Akashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akashdeep 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

Kirori Mal Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jagmohan Vs Sandeep Aggarwal and Anr.

Manjeet Choudhary Vs State of Haryana

Mandeep Singh @ Kaku Vs State of Punjab

Rahul @ Sandeep Vs State of Haryana