Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Harwinder Singh@ Pinder And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 1 October, 2019

Harvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 2 September, 2024

In light of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby disposed of with direction to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala to decide CRR-21-2023 titled as Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in an expeditious manner without granting unnecessary adjournments preferrably within a period of next 3 months, in accordance with law. The District and Sessions Judge, Barnala is directed to ensure that the concerned record of the trial Court should be available with the aforesaid revisional Court by the next date fixed in the revision petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K Singh - Full Document

Mandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 August, 2023

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sitara Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 3 , Harwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 4 and Harsimran Singh vs. State of Punjab5 and submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to discriminate between the similarly situated persons who have applied for the post. He has also taken notice of this Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner wherein she has mentioned of other applicants who were appointed as Naib Tehsildar on account of the death of their parent.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Daler Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 31 January, 2020

12. As far as the plea with regard to the hostile discrimination which the petitioner has faced when similarly placed persons have been appointed on compassionate grounds on the post of Clerk especially Sh. Gagandeep son of Late Sh. Shambu Nath vide order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) which is during the same period when the petitioner was being considered for appointment, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner could not have been appointed because of his undertaking cannot be accepted. Petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of appointment on the post of Clerk. There has been discrimination meted out to the petitioner and as has been held by this Court on the principle of discrimination in appointment on compassionate grounds in Harwinder Singh's case (supra) and Harsimran Singh's case (supra) as also a judgment of the Supreme Court in Surya Kant Kadam's case (supra), as referred to above, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk deserves to be accepted.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Shivam Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2020

[2]. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases bearing CRM-M No.13685 of 2020 titled as "Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 15.06.2020, CRM-M No.2831 of 2019 titled as "Sunil Bhati @ Sunil Kumar Bhati Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 13.01.2020, CRM-M No.13732 of 2020 titled as "Ricky Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh", passed on 16.06.2020 and 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2020 21:23:05 ::: CRM-M-13257-2020 -2- CRM-M No.46998 of 2019 titled as "Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 10.02.2020, in which the petitioners, from whom Buprenorphine injections had been recovered, were nevertheless released on bail, in view of the fact that they were not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, and also that on account of the existing COVID-19 pandemic, routine trial of the cases would take a longer time. In the present case also, the petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and challan against him has already been submitted after completion of the investigation, although the trial is yet to commence. [3]. As such, at this stage, in view of the extra ordinary situation occasioned on account of the existing COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned, subject to the condition that the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same, in case the petitioner is found to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daljit Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2020

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.420 dated 25.12.2019, under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Rural). [2]. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases bearing CRM-M No.13685 of 2020 titled as "Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 15.06.2020, CRM-M No.2831 of 2019 titled as "Sunil Bhati @ Sunil Kumar Bhati Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 13.01.2020, CRM-M No.13732 of 2020 titled as "Ricky Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh", passed on 16.06.2020 and 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 02:01:19 ::: CRM-M-23632-2020 (O&M) -2- CRM-M No.46998 of 2019 titled as "Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 10.02.2020, in which the petitioners, from whom Buprenorphine injections had been recovered, were nevertheless released on bail, in view of the fact that they were not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, and also that on account of the existing COVID-19 pandemic, routine trial of the cases would take a longer time. In the present case also, the petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and challan against him has already been submitted after completion of the investigation, although the trial is yet to commence. [3]. As such, at this stage, in view of the extra ordinary situation occasioned on account of the existing COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned, subject to the condition that the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same, in case the petitioner is found to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baljinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 September, 2020

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in cases bearing CRM-M-13685-2020 titled as "Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab", dated 15.06.2020; CRM-M-2831-2019 titled as "Sunil Bhati @ Sunil Kumar Bhati Vs. State of Punjab", dated 13.01.2020; CRM-M-13732-2020 titled as "Ricky Vs. Union of Territory, Chandigarh", dated 16.06.2020 and CRM-M-46998-2019 titled as "Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab", dated 10.02.2020, in which the petitioners, from whom Buprenorphine injections had been recovered, were nevertheless released on bail, in view of the fact that they were not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, and also that on account of existing Covid-19 pandemic, routine trial of the cases would take a long time.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 October, 2020

2. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases bearing CRM-M No.13685 of 2020 titled as "Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 15.06.2020, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2020 23:29:53 ::: CRM-M No.10621 of 2020 (O&M) -2- ***** CRM-M No.2831 of 2019 titled as "Sunil Bhati @ Sunil Kumar Bhati Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 13.01.2020, CRM-M No.13732 of 2020 titled as "Ricky Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh", passed on 16.06.2020 and CRM-M No.46998 of 2019 titled as "Harwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab", passed on 10.02.2020, in which the Petitioners, from whom similar type of contraband had been recovered, were nevertheless released on bail, in view of the fact that they were not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, and also that on account of the existing COVID-19 pandemic, routine trial of the cases would take a longer time. In the present case also, the Petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and Challan against him has already been submitted after completion of the investigation, although the trial is yet to commence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next