Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 25, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1058283

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhdev Singh

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

.....petitioner sukhdev singh submits that the petitioner purchased the plot from satish in the year 1995, which was allotted to him by the society sometimes earlier. he further submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same. learned counsel for the petitioner jagan nath has, however, read the fir which makes it apparent that the president and secretary of the society were accused of selling the plots fraudulently and cheating the members of the society. according to him, the petitioner has no role in the same. the fact that these were the dumping grounds is denied. none appears for the complainant despite the fact that on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned only on account of non-appearance of anyone on behalf of the complainant. learned state counsel, on the other hand, admits that the petitioners have joined the investigation. according to him, some documents have been recovered and some are yet to be recovered. he further admits that the petitioners are not the president and secretary of the society. looking to the fact that the petitioners are not the president and secretary of the society and had no material role crl. misc. not m-7165 of 2012 & =3= crl. misc. not m-6047 of 2012 to play in the affairs of the society as also the fact that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and have cooperated with the same, i find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. consequently, the petitions are allowed and orders dated 20.3.2012 and 1.5.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are made absolute. january 25,2013 (vijender singh malik ) jiten judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-7165 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:

25. 01.2013 Sukhdev Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent with Crl.

Misc.

not M-6047 of 2012(O&M) Jagan Nath ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.T.S.Sangha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Sukhdev Singh.

Mr.B.S.Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner Jagan Nath.

Mr.Amit Chaudhry, DAG Punjab.

None for the complainant.

--- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) By way of above-mentioned two petitions Sukhdev Singh and Jagan Nath, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.169 dated 20.9.2011 at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-7165 of 2012 & =2= Crl.

Misc.

not M-6047 of 2012 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sukhdev Singh submits that the petitioner purchased the plot from Satish in the year 1995, which was allotted to him by the Society sometimes earlier.

He further submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperated with the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Jagan Nath has, however, read the FIR which makes it apparent that the President and Secretary of the Society were accused of selling the plots fraudulently and cheating the members of the Society.

According to him, the petitioner has no role in the same.

The fact that these were the dumping grounds is denied.

None appears for the complainant despite the fact that on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned only on account of non-appearance of anyone on behalf of the complainant.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that the petitioners have joined the investigation.

According to him, some documents have been recovered and some are yet to be recovered.

He further admits that the petitioners are not the President and Secretary of the Society.

Looking to the fact that the petitioners are not the President and Secretary of the Society and had no material role Crl.

Misc.

not M-7165 of 2012 & =3= Crl.

Misc.

not M-6047 of 2012 to play in the affairs of the Society as also the fact that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and have cooperated with the same, I find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the petitions are allowed and orders dated 20.3.2012 and 1.5.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are made absolute.

January 25,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial