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.

“heard. Vs. State of Punjab

“heard. vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided May 19, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1141043

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

“heard.

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

.....10:20 police continent to stop them from entering the house of narinder i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m no.3318 of 2014 2 singh. notice of motion for 19.05.2014. meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the police and join the investigation. in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall also comply with other conditions specified in section 438 (2) of the code of criminal procedure, failing which the petitioners shall loose the benefit of interim bail.”. since the allegations against the petitioners in other two connected petitions were similar, accordingly, identical notice of motion orders were issued in other two petitions i.e.on 17.02.2014 in crm-m no.4717 of 2014 and order dated 13.03.2014 in crm-m no.8928 of 2014. learned state counsel upon instructions from asi malkeet singh would apprise the court that all the petitioners in these connected petitions have since joined the investigation. learned state counsel would further submit that the investigation has since been completed and even the final report under section 173 cr.p.c.has been presented and now the matter is fixed before the trial court on 02.06.2014 for framing of charges. in view of the factual matrix noticed here-in-above, the present petitions are allowed. order dated 29.01.2014 passed in crm- m no.3318 of 2014, order dated 17.02.2014 in crm-m no.4717 of 2014 and order dated 13.03.2014 in crm-m no.8928 of 2014 are made absolute. petitions disposed of. may 19, 2014. (tejinder singh dhindsa) kanchan kanchan 2014.05.22 10:20 judge i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

CRM-M No.3318 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.3318 of 2014.

Date of Decision : 19.05.2014.

Gurpreet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

(Oral) This order shall dispose of CRM-M No.3318 of 2014 titled as 'Gurpreet Singh and others versus State of Punjab', CRM-M No.4717 of 2014 titled as 'Happy Singh and another versus State of Punjab' and CRM-M No.8928 of 2014 titled as 'Sukhpal Singh versus State of Punjab' as all these petitions have been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C.seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.28 dated 10.06.2012, under Sections 353, 186, 436, 427, 451, 148 and 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Joga, District Mansa.

On 29.01.2014, while issuing notice of motion in CRM-M No.3318 of 2014, the following order was passed by this Court :- “Heard.

As per the allegations in the FIR the petitioners no.1, 3 to 6 were part of a mob headed by Happy, Bittu, petitioner No.2- Harpreet Singh and some other persons.

They entered the house of Narinder Singh and caused damage there, despite the request of the complainant and ASI Harnek Singh, who was there with the Kanchan 2014.05.22 10:20 police continent to stop them from entering the house of Narinder I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.3318 of 2014 2 Singh.

Notice of motion for 19.05.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Police and join the investigation.

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall also comply with other conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failing which the petitioners shall loose the benefit of interim bail.”

.

Since the allegations against the petitioners in other two connected petitions were similar, accordingly, identical notice of motion orders were issued in other two petitions i.e.on 17.02.2014 in CRM-M No.4717 of 2014 and order dated 13.03.2014 in CRM-M No.8928 of 2014.

Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Malkeet Singh would apprise the Court that all the petitioners in these connected petitions have since joined the investigation.

Learned State counsel would further submit that the investigation has since been completed and even the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.has been presented and now the matter is fixed before the trial Court on 02.06.2014 for framing of charges.

In view of the factual matrix noticed here-in-above, the present petitions are allowed.

Order dated 29.01.2014 passed in CRM- M No.3318 of 2014, order dated 17.02.2014 in CRM-M No.4717 of 2014 and order dated 13.03.2014 in CRM-M No.8928 of 2014 are made absolute.

Petitions disposed of.

May 19, 2014.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) Kanchan kanchan 2014.05.22 10:20 JUDGE I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial