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.

Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided May 03, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1064604

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

Dilbagh Singh

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

.....o”2. this court while issuing notice of motion on 12.03.2013 passed the following order:- “crl.m.no.15209 of 2013 application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.not m-7862 of 2013 contends that petitioner is ready to pay `70,000 to complainant as mentioned by him in his complaint. notice of motion to advocate general, punjab, for 5.4.2013. however, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to his paying `70,000 and subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438(2) cr.p.c.” it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 12.03.2013 and that he has also paid `70,000/- to complainant by way of draft in the name of complainant. this factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the state, on instruction from asi bhalor singh. bail application is not opposed. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on crm not m-7862 o”3. behalf of dilbagh singh is accepted and order dated 12.03.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438(2) cr.p.c.the present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( ram chand gupta ) may 3, 2013. judge ‘om’

Full Judgment

CRM not M-7862 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 7862 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2013.

Dilbagh Singh .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.17 dated 05.02.2013, under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at police station Raikot, District Ludhiana.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

CRM not M-7862 o”

2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 12.03.2013 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.15209 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.not M-7862 of 2013 Contends that petitioner is ready to pay `70,000 to complainant as mentioned by him in his complaint.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 5.4.2013.

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to his paying `70,000 and subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 12.03.2013 and that he has also paid `70,000/- to complainant by way of draft in the name of complainant.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Bhalor Singh.

Bail application is not opposed.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on CRM not M-7862 o”

3. behalf of Dilbagh Singh is accepted and order dated 12.03.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 3, 2013.

JUDGE ‘om’

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial