Skip to content


Dara Singh Vs. Dara Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Dara Singh

Respondent

Dara Singh

Excerpt:


.....miscellaneous not m-52 of 2013 and criminal miscellaneous not m-2061 of 2013 as they arise out of a common fir and involve similar questions of facts and law.2. these are petitions seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners where they had contended that no injury was caused with fire-arm to the complainant and in the fir, it was alleged that more than 10 people, other than the ones named, were involved. the petitioners contended that they have not been attributed any injury and that the co-accused of the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of interim bail.3. noticing these facts, this court, vide order dated 7.1.2013 (passed in criminal miscellaneous not m-52 of 2013) and order dated 22.1.2013 (passed in criminal miscellaneous not m-2061 of 2013) had directed the petitioners to be released on bail, subject to their complying with the provisions of section 438(2) cr.p.c., pursuant to which, they have since joined the investigation as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and not controverted by the learned counsel for the state, on instructions from assistant sub inspector ram pal.4. having regard to the aforesaid, the petitions.....

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 18”

1. Criminal Miscellaneous not M-52 of 2013 (O & M) Dara Singh ..... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT ...

2. Criminal Miscellaneous not M-2061 of 2013 (O & M) Jagga Singh ..... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ... PRESENT: - Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. N.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . Mahesh Grover, J (Oral) Crl. Misc. not M-52 of 2013 [2].

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. Criminal Miscellaneous not M-52 of 2013 and Criminal Miscellaneous not M-2061 of 2013 as they arise out of a common FIR and involve similar questions of facts and law.

2. These are petitions seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners where they had contended that no injury was caused with fire-arm to the complainant and in the FIR, it was alleged that more than 10 people, other than the ones named, were involved. The petitioners contended that they have not been attributed any injury and that the co-accused of the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of interim bail.

3. Noticing these facts, this Court, vide order dated 7.1.2013 (passed in Criminal Miscellaneous not M-52 of 2013) and order dated 22.1.2013 (passed in Criminal Miscellaneous not M-2061 of 2013) had directed the petitioners to be released on bail, subject to their complying with the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, they have since joined the investigation as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners and not controverted by the learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Pal.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petitions are allowed. Order dated 7.1.2013 (passed in Criminal Crl. Misc. not M-52 of 2013 [3]. Miscellaneous not M-52 of 2013) and order dated 22.1.2013 (passed in Criminal Miscellaneous not M-2061 of 2013) are hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall continue to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Mahesh Grover) February 18, 2013 Judge avin




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //