Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.61 seconds)

Prabhdeep Singh Alias Prabh vs State Of Punjab on 17 October, 2022

[14] I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. [15] Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2019 i.e. for a period of close to 02 years and 09 months after excluding the period of interim bail during which report was awaited from the Forensic Science Laboratory and out of 11 prosecution witnesses only 02 were examined on 13.03.2020 whereafter no prosecution witnesses have been examined and today the case has been adjourned to 17.11.2022. It also 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2022 01:25:07 ::: CRM-M-35051-2022 [9] needs noticing here that the prosecution witnesses have not turned up to give evidence despite the issuance of bailable warrants on a number of dates. The petitioner does not have criminal record other than the instant case andthe trial is likely to take considerable period of time. Accordingly, in view of examination of only two prosecution witnesses that too in March 2020, consequential denial of the right of the petitioner- accused to a speedy trial despite directions by this Court vide order, Annexure P/2 dated 07.09.2021, and the resultant entitlement to bail in the light of decision of Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court in Harpal Singh's case, of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lokesh Chadha's, Amit Singh @ Moniand ChittaBiswa's case, besides in view of the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gaurav Chadha's case, Jagtar Singh @ Jagga's case, Ankush Kumar @ Sonu's case, Ajay Kumar @ Nanu's case, besides, VipanSood's case as upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also the other judgments referred to above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned CJM / Trial Court / Duty Magistrate, concerned, provided he is not required in any other case. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B S Walia - Full Document

Mangu Ram Alias Prem Kumar Son Of Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009

A perusal of the above spells out that no specific question has been put to the appellant-accused with regard to the conscious possession of 30 Kgs. poppy husk recovered calling upon him to explain the circumstances, which gave rise to presumption to be drawn against him under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. For conscious possession, the minimum requirement to be specified is the custody and control over the goods in question. Merely because the bag containing poppy husk was lying beside the accused, does not mean that he was in possession of the said bag specially when no question to that effect has been put to the Crl. Appeal No. 2207-SB of 2008 11 accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution, which would entitle the appellant to be acquitted as the conviction recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Ranvir Yadav vs. State of Bihar (supra), Raj Kumar vs. State of Punjab (supra), Hari Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Somnath etc.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - A G Masih - Full Document

State vs Accused on 19 November, 2012

22. I have considered the principles of law laid down in case Rashid v. State, (supra), State of Haryana v. Surender @ Shailender, (supra), Sanjay v. State, and the evidence on record, I am of the view that testimony of Smt. Shyam Kumari is not reliable and trustworthy and the prosecution could not proved on record beyond reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt that accused made a extra judicial confession before her. The reasons which support my decision are firstly, that in cross examination she deposed that accused had disclosed his plan to eliminate her husband about six months ago from the date of his murder. It is unbelievable that neither she told this plan/ threat to her SC No.15/08 State Vs. Udaiveer Singh Page 13/40 husband clearly nor lodged any report in the police.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rita Plastic Private Limited And Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 26 September, 2025

10. Law is quite clear on this point. The norm would be to direct depositing of an amount of the compensation in terms of Section 148 of the said Act. It would only be an exception not to do so and in such event, special reasons are to be recorded. On this reliance was placed on a decision in Surinder Singh Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi (supra) and Muskan Enterprises vs. State of Punjab (supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J Sengupta - Full Document

Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2023

Similarly this Court in the cases of Sukhchain Singh @ Manga's case(supra), Salim Vs. State of Haryana's case (supra), Gagandeep Vs. State of Punjab's case (supra), Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Vs. State of Punjab's case (supra), Shankar Prashad Chanau Vs. The State of 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2023 02:48:04 ::: CRM-M-57485-2022 # 3# Punjab's case (supra) and Shankar Prashad Chanau Vs. The State of Punjab's case (supra), granted the concession of bail to the petitioners therein where the recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Gurvinder Singh Alias Ginda vs State Of Punjab on 12 July, 2023

Similarly this Court in the cases of Sukhchain Singh @ Manga's case(supra), Salim Vs. State of Haryana's case (supra), Gagandeep Vs. State of Punjab's case (supra), Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Vs. State of Punjab's case (supra), Shankar Prashad Chanau Vs. The State of Punjab's case (supra) and Shankar Prashad Chanau Vs. The State of Punjab's case (supra), granted the concession of bail to the petitioners therein where the recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Era Infra Engineering Ltd vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & ... on 2 May, 2013

In M/s Supra Enterprises Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman & another 2006 (2) PLR 539, in which, one of us (Ajay Kumar Mittal J.) held that blacklisting of a commercial firm has serious civil consequences and it affects the reputation of the firm and the State is expected to proceed with care and responsibility before taking such a drastic step. Relevant observations read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next