Judgment:
CRM No.M-12611 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-12611 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2014 Hanta Singh @ Harwant Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Sukhwinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate, for the respondent.
**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioners-Hanta Singh alias Harwant son of Bawa Singh and otheRs.have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a criminal case instituted against them on a private complaint, filed by complainant-Sukhwinder Kaur widow of Gurnam Singh-respondent, in which, they were summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 308, 452, 427, 325, 324 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, by the trial Court.
2.
Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent.
3.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
Kumar Naresh 2014.05.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-12611 of 2014 -2- 4.
During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 21, 2014: - - “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant Gurnam Singh son of Boota Singh, had filed a false criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) on account of previous enmity, in which, the petitioners and their other Co.accused were summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 308, 452, 427, 325, 324 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, vide summoning order dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure P-2).by the trial Court.
The argument is that even the alleged occurrence was stated to have been taken place on 06.09.2009, whereas the present criminal complaint was filed in the Court on 06.10.2009 without any cogent explanation.
Moreover, the controveRs.involved in the instant petition is stated to be identical to the one raised in CRM-M No.10861 of 2014 titled as Charanjit Kaur versus Sukhwinder Kaur, in which, the similarly situated co-accused was ordered to be admitted to bail, by means of order dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) by this Court.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 12.05.2014.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit them to interim (provisional) bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.”
.
5.
At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record the copy of order dated 08.05.2014, which would reveal that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioneRs.in pursuance of order of this Court, were accepted and attested by the trial Court.
6.
In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted.
The interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by way of order dated April 21, 2014, is hereby made absolute.
May 12, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.05.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh