Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh @ Janta vs . State Of Punjab on 1 November, 2012
Gurjant Singh @ Janta Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. 54378 of 2012 in
Crl. Appeal No. S-2637-SB of 2012
--
Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG Punjab. Custody certificate taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of awarded sentence of one year for the offence punishable under section 15 of the NDPS Act, the appellant has remained in custody for about six months. The custody certificate filed by the State also shows that on 8.10.2012 the appellant had undergone five months and seventeen days of actual sentence. The appeal is of the year 2012 and is not likely to be heard soon. Moreover, this is first appeal and the appellant should not be made to suffer punishment before turn of hearing of this appeal comes. The sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Barnala.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
105
Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-34112 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not armed as shown in the FIR and he is only attributed a lalkara. He further submits that it is a case with version and cross- version.
Notice of motion, returnable for 22.1.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down in section 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
104
Jang Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. M-34071 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Yowan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
On oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, section 498 IPC as mentioned in the head of the petition be corrected as 498-A IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners who are parents-in-law of complainant Jaswinder Kaur.
Notice of motion, returnable for 22.1.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation and if they are sought to be arrested, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down in section 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
107
Harinder Pal Singh @ Happy Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-34085 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 17.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
215
CBI Vs. Sanjiv Kumar & Ors.
Crl. Revision No. 2963 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Standing counsel for CBI.
Adjourned to 29.11.2012.
Be shown in the urgent list.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
220
M/s B.D. Aggarwal & Sons Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. CBI & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-2636 of 2009
--
Present:- None for the petitioner.
On written request circulated on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, case is adjourned to 14.1.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
219
Paramjit Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.
Crl. Misc. No. M-54591 of 2007
--
Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamal Satija, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. Rajive Sharma, APP U.T. Chandigarh. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent no.2 refers to some documents, to which objection was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner about this mode of arguing the case.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that during the course of proceedings of this case, the bank official was asked to remain present and he has brought the file today and the documents are being referred from the said file.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 seeks time to place on record the copies of those documents.
Adjourned to 7.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
214
M/s Jasch Packagining India Ltd. Vs. Anup Gupta
Crl. Revision No. 3284 of 2011 and Crl. Revision No. 3285 of 2011 (O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice issued to respondent has not been received back served or otherwise.
Let fresh notice be issued, returnable for 7.1.2013. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected petition.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
114
Sunita Dass Vs. Bidyut Biswas & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. 62318 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No. S-2404-SB of 2012
--
Present:- Mr. K. L. Kohli, Advocate for the applicant.
List the application on 9.11.2012, the date already fixed in the main case.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
204
Daljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-17729 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to place on record the statement of eye witness Ranjodh Singh recorded at the trial.
Adjourned to 22.11.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
203
Sarla Devi& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-27968 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have not joined the investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to some problem the petitioners could not join the investigation. He seeks adjournment so that the petitioners may join the investigation.
Adjourned to 14.1.2013.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
202
Rajinder Singh Dhanda Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. M-26925 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana.
Arguing counsel for the petitioner is stated to be hospitalized.
Adjourned to 14.1.2013.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
112
Mrs. Geeta Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-33517 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Ravi K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 05.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
119
Desh Raj & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-34110 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Notice of motion, returnable for 21.1.2013.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
118
Sanjay Jangir & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Crl. Misc. No. M-33984 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Notice of motion, returnable for 11.12.2012. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate appears for respondents no.2 to 10.
In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate on 16.11.2012 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.
The report in this regard be sent by the court concerned on or before the date fixed.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
122
Gurpreet Singh @ Sheru Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-34143 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Notice of motion, returnable for 11.12.2012. In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate on 16.11.2012 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.
The report in this regard be sent by the court concerned on or before the date fixed.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
217
Rama Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Crl. Misc. No. M-37742 of 2010
--
Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana.
Status report filed by the State is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to address arguments.
Adjourned to 22.11.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
121
Manmohan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-34139 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
Notice of motion, returnable for 11.12.2012. In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate on 16.11.2012 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise.
The report in this regard be sent by the court concerned on or before the date fixed.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
120
Jasvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-34125 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Notice of motion, returnable for 21.1.2013. In the meanwhile, charges be not framed.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
211
Jagtar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Revision No. 2740 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab. Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for respondent no.2.
Service is complete.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 seeks time to address arguments.
Adjourned to 10.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
210
Dharam Pal Vs. Mehar Chand & Ors.
Crl. Misc. No. A-819-MA of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to address arguments.
Adjourned to 6.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
124
Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Appeal No. 3131-SB of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.
Notice of the appeal as well as application for suspension of sentence, returnable for 6.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
126
Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Appeal No. 3110-SB of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Deep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 140 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard.
Admitted.
Recovery of fine shall remain stayed.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
125
Bhola Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Appeal No. 3132-SB of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. J.S. Ghumman, Advocate for the appellant.
Heard.
Admitted.
Recovery of fine shall remain stayed. Notice regarding suspension of sentence, returnable for 12.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
108/38
Anil Bhandari & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-32404 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- None.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 15.11.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
123
Raj Singh Gehlot Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-34200 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
List before some other Bench after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
109
Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-34192 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Deepinder Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 18.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
106
Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-33710 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 18.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
108
Surinder Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Misc. No. M-34152 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. A.S. Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. D.P.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Arguing counsel for the petitioner is stated to be in some personal difficulty.
Adjourned to 9.11.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
111
Panjiram Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. M-34055 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 18.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
110
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. M-33750 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 18.12.2012.
01.11.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
110
Wasim Vs. State of Haryana
Crl. Misc. No. M-33529 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Notice of motion, returnable for 17.01.2013.
31.10.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
243
Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG Punjab. Arguing counsel for the petitioner is stated to be in some personal difficulty.
Adjourned to 11.1.2013.
31.10.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
218
Chhabeg Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur
Crl. Revision No. 3018 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. Virender Malik, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Arguing counsel for the petitioner is stated to have gone out of station.
Adjourned to 11.1.2013.
31.10.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik )
Jiten Judge
239
Surjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Crl. Misc. No. M-28111 of 2012(O&M)
--
Present:- Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG Punjab. *** Notice issued to respondent no.2 has not been received back served or otherwise.
Let fresh notice be issued to respondent no.2, returnable for 18.12.2012.
Meanwhile, State may file reply with an advance copy to counsel opposite.
31.10.2012 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) Jiten Judge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-20972 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:31.10.2012 Jagdip Singh @ Jassu ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. AG Punjab.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Jagdip Singh @ Jassu, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 107 dated 10.10.2010 at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, for an offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, the story of the complainant had been of theft of 70 tolas of gold and a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from an iron box of the complainant. According to him, during enquiry the police found the theft to be of Rs.50,000/- in cash and 20 tolas of gold. He then referred me to the compromise dated 17.1.2011, Annexure P-2/T where it is mentioned that no grievance is left with the complainant either against Jatinder Kaur or anyone else. The other terms of compromise regarding the inter-se disputes between Jatinder Kaur and the complainant are also mentioned. He then referred me to affidavit, Annexure P-3/T of Sarabjit Kaur complainant where these facts are reiterated. According to him, two other co-accused of the petitioner namely Crl. Misc. No.M-20972 of 2012 =2= Jatinder Kaur and Ranjit Singh @ Rana have been granted anticipatory bail by this court vide orders dated 25.7.2012 and 11.5.2012 respectively. According to him, the role of the petitioner is much less than the role of those two co-accused who have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and so the petitioner is also entitled to bail.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satwinderpal Singh, submits that he has no information about the compromise. According to him, the petitioner has though joined the investigation, but the recovery is yet to be effected.
A careful perusal of the orders passed in the matters of Jatinder Kaur and Ranjit Singh @ Rana would show that State had admitted about the compromise in those cases but had claimed that said compromise was conditional and the condition was of return of ornaments and cash. The relief was granted for the reason that the documents named as compromise and affidavit did not disclose any such condition. Taking the compromise and affidavit as unconditional, the relief was granted. There is no reason why the relief granted to the co-accused of the petitioner could be withheld from the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 23.7.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
October 31,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-34174 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:. 1.11.2012 M/s Mahaluxmi Silk Store ... Petitioner vs. M/s Jain Udhay Hosiery ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. S.S. Panag, Advocate for the petitioner.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition at this stage. He prays for directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it as expeditiously as possible.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29267 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:. 1.11.2012 Kulwant Singh & Anr.
... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition at this stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1792 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:. 1.11.2012 Jaswinder Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Anurag Singh Tagra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition in view of the report of the Warrant Officer.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-27443 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:. 1.11.2012 Satpal ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab. Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the complainant.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Satpal, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.234 dated 30.9.2010 at Police Station Mansa for an offence punishable under sections 148, 120-B, 307, 498-A and 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC in which challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed for the offence punishable under sections 109, 148, 304-B, 307, 498-A and 506 IPC read with section 149 IPC and in which charge has now been framed under sections 109, 302, 304-B, 498-A read with section 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 3.10.2010. According to him, he is the father-in-law of the deceased Rajni Bala. He further submits that the FIR in this case is based on the last statement of the Crl. Misc. No.M-27443 of 2012 =2= deceased where the name of the petitioner appears in the last sentence where the deceased says that her father-in-law and devar had instigated her husband to harass her. He further submits that Madhu the devrani and Happy Kumar the devar have been granted bail by this court. According to him, the case against the petitioner is on the same footing as the case against Happy Kumar and in these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, however, admits that the only allegation against the petitioner is appearing in the last line of statement of deceased where she says that the petitioner and Happy Kumar had instigated her husband for harassing her.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner and the husband of the deceased had been residing together. According to him, there is specific allegation in the dying declaration against the petitioner. He further submits that it is a heinous crime. He further submits that the deceased had suffered 90% burn injuries and she was put on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her.
Nothing of the nature of allegations of putting the deceased on fire appears in the dying declaration on which the FIR is based. The allegation against the petitioner is only of instigating her husband for causing her harassment. Happy Crl. Misc. No.M-27443 of 2012 =3= Kumar was also in the same position and bail has been granted to him. So, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29330 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:.1.11.2012 Rinku ... Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG Haryana.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Rinku, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 207 dated 1.7.2012 at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal, for an offence punishable under sections 395 and 397 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking me through the FIR, submits that the role assigned to the petitioner is of driving the Santro car in which the assailants came to the spot. According to him, on 4.7.2012 the complainant made a supplementary statement, Annexure P-2, where he had changed his statement by saying that in fact Santro car was being driven by Ajju and not by Rinku. He further submits that the role of Rinku in the occurrence gets blurred. According to him, nothing has been recovered from Rinku. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 6.8.2012. Crl. Misc. No.M-29330 of 2012 =2= Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that nothing has been recovered from the person of Rinku. According to him, the recoveries are from other persons. He also admits that the complainant made a supplementary statement whereby he changed the role of Rinku.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances where the complainant had changed his statement and reversed the role assigned to the petitioner and the fact that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner, I find him entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-34182 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:.01.11.2012 Aman Kumar & Anr.
... Petitioners vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Aman Kumar and Neeru Rani, the petitioners before me, claim themselves to be major and claiming that they have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 11, seek protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger to them from the side of respondents no. 4 to 11. They have placed on record photographs, Annexure P-3, evidencing their marriage. The petitioners have submitted representation dated 22.10.2012, Annexure P-4 to respondent no.2.
Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-4 within a period of one month and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is made clear that this order shall Crl. Misc. No.M-34182 of 2012 =2= not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law if any committed by them.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-34216 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:.01.11.2012 Smt. Usha & Anr.
... Petitioners vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
---
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Smt. Usha and Amit Chauhan, the petitioners before me, claim themselves to be major and claiming that they have married against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 7, seek protection to their life and liberty. They apprehend danger to them from the side of respondents no. 4 to 7. They have placed on record photographs and affidavit of the petitioners, Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively, evidencing their marriage. The petitioners have submitted representation dated 30.10.2012, Annexure P-5 to respondent no.2.
Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, I dispose of the petition with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-5 within a period of one month and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is made clear that this order shall Crl. Misc. No.M-34216 of 2012 =2= not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law if any committed by them.
November 01,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE