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.

Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm) Vs. Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm)

Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm) vs Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm)

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 25, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1058366

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

Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm)

Respondent

Criminal Misc.No. M-40952 of 2012 (Oandm)

Excerpt

.....proved futile. it was claimed that thereafter, all the accused caused injuries to vijay kumar (husband of inderjit kaur accused) and his parents. no specific role or injury is attributed to the petitioner. who caused the injuries, subject matter of an offence u/s 307 ipc, till today remains an unfolded mystery. moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 14.5.2012, since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. even since the charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.5. in the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanated from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.6. needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. 25.1.2013 (mehinder singh sullar) as judge

Full Judgment

CRM not M-40952 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.not M-40952 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.1.2013 Major Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.S.Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Addl. AG Punjab for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) Petitioner Major Singh son of Sajjan Singh has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Inderjit Kaur (sister) Daljit Kaur (mother) and Manpreet Singh and 3-4 unknown persons, by means of FIR No.34 dated 4.5.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 328, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Laddowal, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this regard.

4. As is evident from the record that there was a matrimonial dispute between Inderjit Kaur, sister of the petitioner and her husband CRM not M-40952 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Vijay Kumar injured. The reconciliation proceedings proved futile. It was claimed that thereafter, all the accused caused injuries to Vijay Kumar (husband of Inderjit Kaur accused) and his parents. No specific role or injury is attributed to the petitioner. Who caused the injuries, subject matter of an offence u/s 307 IPC, till today remains an unfolded mystery. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 14.5.2012, since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even since the charges have not yet been framed against the petitioner, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

5. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanated from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

6. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. 25.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial