Criminal Appeal No. 31715 of 2010 · Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2), 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. T.S.Sangha, Sr.Advocate with Mr. H.S.Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-21163 of 2010. Mrs. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-18332 of 2010. CRM No.M-21163 of 2010 2 Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-17869 of 2010. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned three petitions i.e. two for grant of regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Shah Mohd. and Jaspal Singh and one for grant of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Jeet Singh in FIR No.32 dated 11.02.2010, under Sections 419/420/ 467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, Shah Mohd. that he has been continuing in custody since
23.02.2010. Further contended that case is triable by Magistrate and the same is not likely to be decided in near future as no witness has been examined so far. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, Jaspal Singh that he has also been continuing in custody since
Operative part
28.02.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as no witness has been examined so far. In the matter of anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Jeet Singh, this Court while issuing notice of motion on 01.07.2010 passed the following order:- CRM No.M-21163 of 2010 3
Crl.M.No.31715 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-17869 of 2010 Argues that petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He is not a beneficiary of the alleged agreement to sell. He was not even a witness to the said agreement to sell and was also not present at the time of execution of said agreement to sell. Rather he was illegally detained by the police. Notice of motion for 15.7.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, Jeet Singh, that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.07.2010.
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not in any way connected with this transaction and that he is a illiterate person and that he has not been named in the FIR. Further contended that he is not signatory to the agreement in any way. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner, Jeet Singh has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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 applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Shah Mohd. and Jaspal Singh, are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/learned trial Court, Patiala. CRM No.M-21163 of 2010 4 The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Jeet Singh, is also accepted and order dated 01.07.2010 granting interim bail in favour the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. September 1, 2010. 'om' ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 438, 438(2), 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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.