Present:- Mr. C.P. Tiwana Advocate Vs. Hardeep Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071468
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-20-2013
AppellantPresent:- Mr. C.P. Tiwana Advocate
RespondentHardeep Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m- 10070 of 2013 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl.misc.not m-10070 of 2013 date of decision:20.05.2013 kashmir singh ..petitioner versus hardeep singh and anr..respondents coram:hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik present:- mr.c.p.tiwana, advocate for the petitioner. none for respondent no.1. mr.rajat mor, dag, haryana for respondent no.2-state. --- vijender singh malik,j kashmir singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in complaint case no.135/2012 titled as hardeep singh v. lakha singh etc., pending before learned judicial magistrate ist class, kaithal, for an offence punishable under sections 120-b, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 506 ipc. crl. misc. not m- 10070 of 2013 (o&m) 2 learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has appeared before the summoning court in terms of the order dated 02.04.2013 and has been granted interim bail. according to him, co-accused of the petitioner named jaspal singh and lakha singh have already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 01.04.2013 passed in crl. misc. not m-5615 of 2013 . he has further submitted that the case has been brought by way of a complaint and in a complaint where there is no stage of custodial interrogation, bail should normally be granted. notice was given to the complainant, who has been served through his wife and this is due service. none has appeared on his behalf. probably he might have thought it to be of no use to oppose the application because despite his opposition, bail was granted to jaspal singh and lakha singh, the two co-accused of the petitioner. learned state counsel has nothing to say in the matter. though the offence for which the petitioner has been summoned is such where custodial interrogation might have been required, yet it is a case brought by way of a complaint and there is no stage of custodial interrogation in crl. misc. not m- 10070 of 2013 (o&m) 3 such a case. after making summoning order in a complaint case, the step to be taken by the court is to secure the presence of the accused, take evidence and take other steps at the trial and then decide the same. the trial would proceed with the magistrate of the firs.class and as it is a warrant trial where, one more stage is added to the trial to make it still more lengthy. in these circumstances, when co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of pre- arrest bail, the petitioner cannot be declined the said concession. hence, the petition is allowed. the order dated 02.04.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute. may 20,2013 (vijender singh malik ) dinesh judge
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 10070 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.not M-10070 of 2013 Date of Decision:20.05.2013 Kashmir Singh ..Petitioner versus Hardeep Singh and anr..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.C.P.Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent no.1.

Mr.Rajat Mor, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.2-State.

--- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J Kashmir Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in complaint case No.135/2012 titled as Hardeep Singh v.

Lakha Singh etc., pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, for an offence punishable under sections 120-B, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC.

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 10070 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has appeared before the summoning court in terms of the order dated 02.04.2013 and has been granted interim bail.

According to him, co-accused of the petitioner named Jaspal Singh and Lakha Singh have already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 01.04.2013 passed in Crl.

Misc.

not M-5615 of 2013 .

He has further submitted that the case has been brought by way of a complaint and in a complaint where there is no stage of custodial interrogation, bail should normally be granted.

Notice was given to the complainant, who has been served through his wife and this is due service.

None has appeared on his behalf.

Probably he might have thought it to be of no use to oppose the application because despite his opposition, bail was granted to Jaspal Singh and Lakha Singh, the two co-accused of the petitioner.

Learned State counsel has nothing to say in the matter.

Though the offence for which the petitioner has been summoned is such where custodial interrogation might have been required, yet it is a case brought by way of a complaint and there is no stage of custodial interrogation in Crl.

Misc.

not M- 10070 of 2013 (O&M) 3 such a case.

After making summoning order in a complaint case, the step to be taken by the court is to secure the presence of the accused, take evidence and take other steps at the trial and then decide the same.

The trial would proceed with the Magistrate of the FiRs.Class and as it is a warrant trial where, one more stage is added to the trial to make it still more lengthy.

In these circumstances, when co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of pre- arrest bail, the petitioner cannot be declined the said concession.

Hence, the petition is allowed.

The order dated 02.04.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

May 20,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) dinesh JUDGE