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.

Chanchal Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Chanchal Singh vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 04, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1154342

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chanchal Singh

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

.....ipc was added by the trial court at the time of framing of charge against mohinder singh and baljit kaur, co-accused of the petitioner. the petitioner had initially moved the court of sessions for anticipatory bail by filing an application under section 438 cr.p.c.the said application was dismissed by additional sessions judge, jalandhar vide order dated 1.6.2013 (annexure p-9).subsequent thereto, when the investigating agency came to the conclusion that there was no material to establish involvement of the sharma parmeshwar dutt 2014.07.08 10:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl. misc. no.20657 of 2014 -2 - petitioner and accordingly, the trial court was requested to set aside the challan already presented against co-accused of the petitioner and the petitioner was also not sought to be challaned, he filed 2nd application for the grant of anticipatory bail on 16.9.2013. the 2nd application came up for hearing before additional sessions judge, jalandhar which was dismissed on 4.10.2013 (annexure p-13) as having become infructuous on the ground that the petitioner had been found innocent and the report under section 173(8) cr.p.c had been moved before the trial court which was pending. subsequent thereto, judicial magistrate ist class, jalandhar vide order dated 8.5.2014 (annexure p-14) dismissed the application filed by the police for discharge of the petitioner. the petitioner then filed 3rd application for the grant of anticipatory bail which came up for consideration before additional district judge, jalandhar, who vide order dated 21.5.2014 (annexure p-19) granted interim bail to him. the 3rd application was, thereafter, taken up by additional sessions judge, jalandhar when the same was dismissed on 7.6.2014 (annexure p-21) on the ground of not being maintainable subsequent to the dismissal of the 2nd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail. hence, the present petition. from the order dated.....

Full Judgment

Crl.

Misc.

No.20657 of 2014 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.

No.M-20657 of 2014 Date of decision: July 04, 2014 Chanchal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr M.S.Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

Mr A.S.Gill, Advocate for the complainant.

T.P.S .MANN, J.

(Oral).Prayer made in the petition is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.124 dated 7.5.2013 under Sections 420/465/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar to which offence under Section 467 IPC was added by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge against Mohinder Singh and Baljit Kaur, co-accused of the petitioner.

The petitioner had initially moved the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.The said application was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 1.6.2013 (Annexure P-9).Subsequent thereto, when the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that there was no material to establish involvement of the Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.07.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.20657 of 2014 -2 - petitioner and accordingly, the trial Court was requested to set aside the challan already presented against co-accused of the petitioner and the petitioner was also not sought to be challaned, he filed 2nd application for the grant of anticipatory bail on 16.9.2013.

The 2nd application came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which was dismissed on 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-13) as having become infructuous on the ground that the petitioner had been found innocent and the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C had been moved before the trial Court which was pending.

Subsequent thereto, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.5.2014 (Annexure P-14) dismissed the application filed by the police for discharge of the petitioner.

The petitioner then filed 3rd application for the grant of anticipatory bail which came up for consideration before Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure P-19) granted interim bail to him.

The 3rd application was, thereafter, taken up by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar when the same was dismissed on 7.6.2014 (Annexure P-21) on the ground of not being maintainable subsequent to the dismissal of the 2nd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Hence, the present petition.

From the order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-13) whereby the 2nd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed, it is apparent that the same was rendered infructuous as the police had already moved an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C before the trial Court which was pending.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2rd application had been Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.07.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.20657 of 2014 -3 - dismissed on merits, rather it was rendered infructuous and was disposed of as such.

Under these circumstances, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar could not have dismissed the 3rd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail merely for the reason that the 2nd application filed by the petitioner stood dismissed.

The Court of Sessions was required to consider the 3rd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail on merits and, thereafter, dispose of the same.

In this view of the matter, this Court has no other option but to direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar to restore the 3rd application filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail and consider and dispose of the same on merits.

Ordered accordingly.

Till the decision of the 3rd application filed by the petitioner by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, interim order dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure P-19) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar shall continue.

(T.P.S.MANN) July 04, 2014 JUDGE Pds.

Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.07.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

No.20657 of 2014 -4 - Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.07.08 10:03 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