Sandeep Singh @bharkila Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1125929
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantSandeep Singh @bharkila
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm no.m-4040 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. no.m- 4040 of 2014(o&m) date of decision: february 11, 2014. sandeep singh @bharkila .....petitioner(s) versus state of punjab .....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.t.s.sangha, senior advocate with mr.h.s.sangha, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.nikhil k.chopra, dag, punjab. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition has been filed for regular bail under section 439 of code of criminal procedure in fir no.33 dated 15.07.2011, under sections 364/120b/302/201/148/149 ipc, registered at police station islamabad, district amritsar city. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, amritsar dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. singh omkar 2014.02.12 10:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh crm no.m-4040 of 2014 2 it has been contended by learned senior counsel for petitioner- accused that only evidence against petitioner-accused is alleged extra- judicial confession made by co-accused veeru before pw2 -rakesh kumar implicating present petitioner and the co-accused as it was stated that all of them were present in the vehicle in which deceased was taken. it is further submitted that said rakesh kumar has already been examined and cross- examined and that even complainant has also been examined and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as some other official witnesses still remain to be examined whereas, the petitioner has been continuing in custody since 28.07.2011. this factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-state. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of sandeep singh @bharkila is allowed. bail to the satisfaction of cjm/duty magistrate, amritsar. ( ram chand gupta ) february 11, 2014. judge ‘om’ singh omkar 2014.02.12 10:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-4040 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

No.M- 4040 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2014.

Sandeep Singh @Bharkila .....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Nikhil K.Chopra, DAG, Punjab.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.33 dated 15.07.2011, under Sections 364/120B/302/201/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Islamabad, District Amritsar City.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Singh Omkar 2014.02.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM No.M-4040 of 2014 2 It has been contended by learned senior counsel for petitioner- accused that only evidence against petitioner-accused is alleged extra- judicial confession made by co-accused Veeru before PW2 -Rakesh Kumar implicating present petitioner and the co-accused as it was stated that all of them were present in the vehicle in which deceased was taken.

It is further submitted that said Rakesh Kumar has already been examined and cross- examined and that even complainant has also been examined and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as some other official witnesses still remain to be examined whereas, the petitioner has been continuing in custody since 28.07.2011.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Sandeep Singh @Bharkila is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 11, 2014.

JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.02.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh