Allowed

Amrik Singh @ Kaloo v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2023CRM-M/3184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge ordinance granting bail to petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a cheque bounce case where investigation was concluded, no injury attributed to petitioner, and co-accused was already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Amrik Singh @ Kaloo Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-3184-2023

¶2

--1--

¶3

215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-3184-2023

¶5

Decided on:-25.01.2023

Amrik Singh @ Kaloo

....Petitioner..

vs.

State of Punjab

....Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶12

Present: Ms. Deepika Sajjal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶14

¶15

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail pending trial in case FIR No.99 dated 28.05.2022, under Section 379-B (2)/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even, no injury to the complainant has been attributed to the present petitioner. She further submits that petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 7 months now, the investigation already stands concluded, challan filed and the trial is likely to take some time. She also submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Bikramjit Singh, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 passed in CRM-M-1356-2023, thus, he also deserves the concession of bail.

¶18

SONIKA 2023.01.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-3184-2023

¶20

--2--

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made in the present petition.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

¶23

Considering the fact that the investigation already stands concluded, challan filed, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of complainant as well as the fact that co-accused, Bikramjit Singh has already been granted the concession of bail, no useful purpose is going to be served by extending the incarceration of the petitioner, who is in custody since 28.05.2022.

¶24

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the mertis of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶25

25.01.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶26

SONIKA 2023.01.25 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Amrik Singh @ Kaloo v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrik Singh @ Kaloo 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

Deepak Alias Chatak Vs State of Haryana

Umed @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Bir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sharif Mohammad @ Shia Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raju Ram Thakur Vs Amarnath Magu