Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1156377
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-17-2014
AppellantJagdish Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm-m no.18441 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crm-m no.18441 of 2014 date of decision :17. 07.2014 jagdish singh ...petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr. rahul bhargava, advocate for the petitioner. ms. amarjit kaur khurana, addl. a.g., punjab for the state. nemo for the complainant. **** mehinder singh sullar, j.(oral) petitioner-jagdish singh son of darshan singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide fir no.119 dated 31.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 336, 323, 324, 447, 511, 506, 148 read with section 149 ipc and sections 25 & 27 of the arms act, by the police of police station ram das, amritsar rural.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state. sumit kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.18441 of 2014 -2- 3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.4. during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this court on may 27, 2014:- “learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this cross case, on account of previous enmity and property dispute. a civil suit between the parties is still pending. the argument is that the parties in both the cross cases are residents of the same village and are immediate neighbourers. now with the intervention of respectables and panchayat members, they have amicably settled their dispute, by virtue of compromise dated 12.05.2014 (annexure p-2). heard. notice of motion be issued to the respondent. at this stage, ms. amarjit kaur khurana, addl. advocate general, punjab and mr. l.m. gulati, advocate appear, accept notice on behalf of the state and complainant respectively and seek time to argue the matter. adjourned to 17.07.2014 for arguments. meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. in the event of his arrest, the arresting officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from asi des raj, learned state counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. he is no longer sumit kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.18441 of 2014 -3- required for further interrogation, at this stage. moreover, the parties were stated to have amicably settled their dispute, by way of compromise dated 12.05.2014 (annexure p-2).6. in the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. the interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order by this court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under section 438(2) cr.p.c.7. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. 17.07.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) sumit.k judge sumit kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRM-M No.18441 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.18441 of 2014 Date of decision :

17. 07.2014 Jagdish Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the State. Nemo for the complainant. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

(Oral) Petitioner-Jagdish Singh son of Darshan Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.119 dated 31.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 336, 323, 324, 447, 511, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Ram Das, Amritsar Rural.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. Sumit Kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18441 of 2014 -2- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 27, 2014:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this cross case, on account of previous enmity and property dispute. A civil suit between the parties is still pending. The argument is that the parties in both the cross cases are residents of the same village and are immediate neighbourers. Now with the intervention of respectables and panchayat members, they have amicably settled their dispute, by virtue of compromise dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-2). Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent. At this stage, Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate appear, accept notice on behalf of the State and complainant respectively and seek time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 17.07.2014 for arguments. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Des Raj, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer Sumit Kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18441 of 2014 -3- required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, the parties were stated to have amicably settled their dispute, by way of compromise dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-2).

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. 17.07.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.07.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document