Jang Singh Vs. Jang Singh

Jang Singh vs Jang Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 16, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1156702

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1156702
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jul 16, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jang Singh

Respondent

Jang Singh

Excerpt

.....mr.justice naresh kumar sanghi present: mr.gopal sharma, advocate for the petitioner....naresh kumar sanghi, j. prayer in this petition, filed under section 438, cr.p.c., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, jang singh, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under section 15 of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (for brevity the 'act').in a case arising out of fir no.63, dated 19.05.2013, registered at police station, balongi, district sas nagar. learned counsel contends that earlier the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 30.08.2013 and thereafter the petitioner continued to appear before the learned trial court. on account of registration of yet another case under the act, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court on 23.04.2014, therefore, his bail was meenu 2014.07.17 17:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.m.no.m-23079 of 2014 (o&m) -2- cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the state and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. he further contends that learned trial court has wrongly declined the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner is required yet in another case under the act. no justification has come on record as to why the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court on 23.04.2014 when two prosecution witnesses were present. it is clearly made out that the petitioner did not want that depositions of the said witnesses could be recorded on that day. no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. dismissed. july 16, 2014 (naresh kumar sanghi) meenu judge meenu 2014.07.17 17:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

Crl.M.No.M-23079 of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.No.M-23079 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 16, 2014 Jang Singh .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner....NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Jang Singh, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity the 'Act').in a case arising out of FIR No.63, dated 19.05.2013, registered at Police Station, Balongi, District SAS Nagar.

Learned counsel contends that earlier the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2013 and thereafter the petitioner continued to appear before the learned trial Court.

On account of registration of yet another case under the Act, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court on 23.04.2014, therefore, his bail was Meenu 2014.07.17 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-23079 of 2014 (O&M) -2- cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants.

He further contends that learned trial Court has wrongly declined the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner is required yet in another case under the Act.

No justification has come on record as to why the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court on 23.04.2014 when two prosecution witnesses were present.

It is clearly made out that the petitioner did not want that depositions of the said witnesses could be recorded on that day.

No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Dismissed.

July 16, 2014 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE Meenu 2014.07.17 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Jang Singh vs Jang Singh Same Subject Education