Mandeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1161530
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-14-2014
AppellantMandeep Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm-m no.25791 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crm-m no.25791 of 2014 date of decision :14. 08.2014 mandeep singh ...petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar present: mr. d.s. malwai, advocate for mr. k.b. raheja, advocate for the petitioner. mr. r.p.s. sidhu, aag, punjab for the state. **** mehinder singh sullar, j.(oral) petitioner 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.57 dated 21.06.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 409 & 120-b ipc, by the police of police station ahmedgarh, district sangrur.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state.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. kumar sumit201408.14 15:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.25791 of 2014 -2- 4. during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this court on august, 02, 2014:- “learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has withdrawn the amount of old age pension immediately after his transfer from sunam to malerkotla as suggested by the pension distribution committee. as soon as petitioner came to know about the bona fide mistake, then, he immediately deposited an amount of `3750/- in the concerned department, vide demand draft dated 10.10.2013. moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is stated to be identical to the one raised in crm-m- 21909 of 2014 titled as 'shinder kaur @ surinder kaur vs. state of punjab and crm-m-22580 of 2014 titled as 'balbir kaur vs. state of punjab', which were decided by this court, vide order dated 21.07.2014. heard. notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 14.08.2014. 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 `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from hc baljit singh, learned state counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. he is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. moreover, the impugned amount of `3750/- has already been deposited in the concerned department. there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the court of magistrate. even, since the prosecution kumar sumit201408.14 15:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.25791 of 2014 -3- has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.6. it is not a matter of dispute that shinder kaur @ surinder and balbir kaur, similarly situated situated co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail in this case, by way of orders dated 21.07.2014, rendered in crm-m-21909 of 2014 and crm- m-22580 of 2014 respectively by this court. therefore, in that eventuality, i see no reason not to extend the same benefit of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.7. 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 and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, 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.8. 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. at the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this court. 14.08.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) sumit.k judge kumar sumit201408.14 15:03 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRM-M No.25791 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25791 of 2014 Date of decision :

14. 08.2014 Mandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

(Oral) Petitioner 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.57 dated 21.06.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 409 & 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

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. KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.25791 of 2014 -2- 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on August, 02, 2014:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has withdrawn the amount of old age pension immediately after his transfer from Sunam to Malerkotla as suggested by the Pension Distribution Committee. As soon as petitioner came to know about the bona fide mistake, then, he immediately deposited an amount of `3750/- in the concerned Department, vide demand draft dated 10.10.2013. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is stated to be identical to the one raised in CRM-M- 21909 of 2014 titled as 'Shinder Kaur @ Surinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M-22580 of 2014 titled as 'Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab', which were decided by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2014. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 14.08.2014. 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 `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from HC Baljit Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, the impugned amount of `3750/- has already been deposited in the concerned Department. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.25791 of 2014 -3- has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. It is not a matter of dispute that Shinder Kaur @ Surinder and Balbir Kaur, similarly situated situated co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail in this case, by way of orders dated 21.07.2014, rendered in CRM-M-21909 of 2014 and CRM- M-22580 of 2014 respectively by this Court. Therefore, in that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.

7. 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 and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, 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.

8. 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. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court. 14.08.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge KUMAR SUMIT201408.14 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document