High CourtsSingle Bench

Balbir Singh alias Beera vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 July 2010 · Citation: (2010) 07 P&H CK 0081

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 201, 302, 364
RESULT
Dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 308 words

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B IPC at Police Station City Mansa, District Mansa, vide FIR No. 62 dated 17th March, 2008.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined so far. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3.

The FIR was lodged due to murder of one Amritpal Singh alias Mangu son of the complainant. He stated before the police that on 15th March, 2008 at about 5.30 P.M., Amritpal Singh alias Mangu had gone to buy certain household goods but he did not come back. His body was later recovered from the bushes in Dashmesh Public School, Mansa in a gunny bag on the disclosure statement of Ajaib Singh. During investigation, investigating agency found that son of the petitioner was stopped by certain persons including the petitioner, thrown into a vehicle and taken away. The motive of the crime is stated to be enmity of the petitioner with family of the complainant as he was earlier a tenant in their house and was asked to vacate the same. He later developed grudge towards son of the complainant.

4.

In view of the seriousness of allegations, the manner of commission of crime, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. It cannot be opined at this stage whether the evidence available against the petitioner would lead to his conviction or not, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, is without any force.

5.

Dismissed.