Dismissed

Amandeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2024CRM-M/5065/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail. The court held that since the petitioners joined the investigation as directed by a previous order and are no longer required for interrogation, the earlier order granting interim bail is made absolute and the present petition is disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by making the order dated 01.02.2024 absolute.

Amandeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

206 2024:PHHC:018702

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-5065-2024

¶5

Date of Decision: February 09, 2024

¶6

AMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER ....... Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

........ Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶11

Present: Ms. Divya Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Through this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.04 dated 12.01.2024 registered under Sections 447, 448, 427, 380, 506 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Division C, District Amritsar.

¶17

On 01.02.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶18

“Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that even if the averments made in the petition are taken at its face value, ownership of the petitioners has not been disputed. Moreover, it has been stated in the FIR that the complainant had shifted his family business to some other place; thus prima facie, no offence has been committed. The present FIR is a result of tenancy dispute between the parties.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, whereas Ms. Ravisha Mahajan, Advocate, appears and filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant-Ashwani Kumar.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the complainant are ad idem that there is possibility of settlement between the parties.

¶22

Let the parties appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 02.02.2024 to explore the possibility of compromise and report in this regard be submitted by the next date of hearing.

¶23

List on 09.02.2024 for further consideration.

¶24

In the meanwhile, petitioners will join investigation before the Investigating Officer as and when called. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to interim bail, till the next date of

¶25

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.13 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:018702

-2-

CRM-M-5065-2024

hearing, on their furnishing adequate bail bonds/ surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioners are directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 3. Learned State counsel informs that in compliance of order

¶30

dated 01.02.2024, petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for further interrogation. Besides it, a report from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court has been received, as per which, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that certain machine and utensils which were lying in the premises in question have been stolen away by the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

A perusal of the FIR shows that once the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is no more required by the Investigating Agency, the allegations of theft regarding machine and the utensils shall be gone into at the stage of trial.

¶34

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the dispute between the private parties relates to the demolition of premises owned by the petitioner which could only be decided after granting the parties to lead their evidence, the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by this Court is made absolute.

¶35

Disposed of accordingly.

¶36

09.02.2024

¶37

tejwinder

¶38

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶39

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.13 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.02.13 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Amandeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Singh and Another 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

Gurjant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manjinder Kumar @ Mani Vs State of Punjab

Navneet Suri Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir @ Kalia Vs State of Haryana

Shubham Vs State of Haryana

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab