Tarsem Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Nov 2009
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Tarsem Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M 29874 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.11.2009 ..Petitioners. ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.J.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the respondent/State. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No.147 dated 25.9.2009 under Sections 420/465/468/471 and 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 25.9.2009. The alleged bags of wheat have already been recovered and there is nothing to be recovered from them for which their custody is required. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not previous offenders. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. CRM-M 29874 of 2009 -2- It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
17.11.2009 Meenu (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Nov 2009. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
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.