Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRM NO. M-24836 OF 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-24836 OF 2013 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 04.10.2013
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. H. S. Diwana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Learned State counsel has submitted that the case is fixed for defence evidence for 09.10.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to lead defence evidence, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail. To support his contention, he has relied upon authority "Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830.
I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same.
The authority Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) deals with Article 21 of the Constitution that nobody should be kept in long custody without any proper trial. The case is at the fag end. Bhatia Shalini 2013.10.07 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM NO. M-24836 OF 2013 (O&M) -2- Moreover, the said case relates to 2G scam in which Sanjay Chandra and others have played different roles. In the present case, the case is already fixed for defence evidence.
The petitioner can produce defence evidence even in custody. Being the main accused, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out.
Dismissed.
OCTOBER 04, 2013 (K. C. PURI)
shalini JUDGE
Bhatia Shalini
2013.10.07 15:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh