Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jarnail Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2012

Author: Rajan Gupta

Bench: Rajan Gupta

CRM-M-26364 of 2011                                        1


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                         CRM-M-26364 of 2011 (O&M)
                         Date of decision: 30.4.2012

Jarnail Singh                                       ...Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Punjab                                     ...Respondent
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Vishal Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 452, 458, 324, 323, 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC added later on at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, vide FIR No.08 dated 15th January, 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the occurrence both sides suffered injuries. Petitioner also suffered a injury on the forehead i.e. an incised would 3x1x1 cm. According to him, material prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and injured witness Mohinder Singh have already deposed before the court. Petitioner is in custody for about 01 year and 02 months and trial of the case may take still some time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.

CRM-M-26364 of 2011 2

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, agrees that two material prosecution witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel for the complainant has also intervened to oppose the prayer.

Heard.

Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that two material prosecution witnesses have been examined, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner any longer. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 30.4.2012 'rajpal'