Jagdish Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1043509
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-30-2013
AppellantJagdish Singh and Another
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
crm not m-17116 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m-17116 of 2013 date of decision:- 30.08.2013 jagdish singh and another .....petitioners versus state of punjab and another .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr.m.k.bhatnagar, advocate for the petitioners.mr.r.p.s.sidhu, assistant advocate general, punjab for respondent no.1. mr.bikramjit arora, advocate for respondent no.2. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioners-jagdish singh son of bachittar singh and his wife leela wanti, have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a criminal case instituted against them, on a private complaint, filed by complainant kartar singh son of pritam singh-respondent no.2 (for brevity 'the complainant').in which, they were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of an offence punishable under section 3(x) of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as “the act”.).by the magistrate, invoking the provisions of section 438 cr.p.c.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state. kumar naresh 2013.09.03 14:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm not m-17116 of 2013 -2- 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.”4. during the cours.of preliminary hearing, a co-ordinate bench of this court (l.n.mittal, j.).has passed the following order on may 22, 2013:- “counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner no.1 (since retired) was superior officer of respondent no.2 – complainant and in discharge of his duty, had transferred the complainant from one place to another and the complainant got annoyed on account of it and has filed this false complaint against petitioner no.1 as well as against his wife petitioner no.2. notice of motion to respondent no.2 – complainant only for 13.08.2013. respondent no.2 be also served through his counsel in the lower court namely mr.ravi b. mahajan, advocate, amritsar. meanwhile, if the petitioners appear in the concerned court within 15 days from today or on the date fixed there, whichever is later, they shall be released on interim bail.”.”5. at the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the copy of order dated 04.06.2013, which would reveal that the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners.in pursuance of the 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 and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners.by way of order dated may 22, 2013, is hereby made absolute. august 30, 2013 (mehinder singh sullar) naresh.k judge kumar naresh 2013.09.03 14:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM not M-17116 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-17116 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 30.08.2013 Jagdish Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.R.P.S.Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.

Mr.Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioners-Jagdish Singh son of Bachittar Singh and his wife Leela Wanti, have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a criminal case instituted against them, on a private complaint, filed by complainant Kartar Singh son of Pritam Singh-respondent No.2 (for brevity 'the complainant').in which, they were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”.).by the Magistrate, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.2.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM not M-17116 of 2013 -2- 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.”

4. During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (L.N.Mittal, J.).has passed the following order on May 22, 2013:- “Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 (since retired) was superior officer of respondent no.2 – complainant and in discharge of his duty, had transferred the complainant from one place to another and the complainant got annoyed on account of it and has filed this false complaint against petitioner No.1 as well as against his wife petitioner No.2.

Notice of motion to respondent No.2 – complainant only for 13.08.2013.

Respondent no.2 be also served through his counsel in the lower court namely Mr.Ravi B.

Mahajan, Advocate, Amritsar.

Meanwhile, if the petitioners appear in the concerned court within 15 days from today or on the date fixed there, whichever is later, they shall be released on interim bail.”

.”

5. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the copy of order dated 04.06.2013, which would reveal that the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the petitioneRs.in pursuance of the 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 and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioneRs.by way of order dated May 22, 2013, is hereby made absolute.

August 30, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh