Veer Pal Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 427
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 342, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Kabarwala, District Muktsar, vide FIR No.66 dated 17th October, 2011. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from Head Constable Sarwan Singh, who is present in court) submits that pursuant to order dated January 24, 2012, petitioners No.1 and 3 have joined investigation and are no longer required for custodial interrogation. He, however, submits that petitioner No.2, who was granted liberty to surrender before the investigating agency, remains at large. Thus, the investigating officer may be given liberty to arrest him. In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated January 24, 2012 qua petitioners No.1 and 3 is CRM-M-1398 of 2012 2 hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the investigating officer shall be at liberty to arrest petitioner No.2 forthwith. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
3.4.2012 'rajpal'
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 438, 438(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 427; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 03 Apr 2012. The bench was RAJAN GUPTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.