CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Balwinder Singh @ Chandi vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 P&H CK 0401

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 382, 395, 399, 402
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M 26458 of 2010
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

9 paragraphs · 384 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing CRM No. M 26458 and 29109 of 2010 filed by Petitioners Balwinder Singh @ Chandi and Hardeep Singh @ Deep respectively u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 13 dated 20.1.2009 registered u/s 382 IPC at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

2.

Replies in both the petitions filed by counsel for the Respondent-State are taken on record.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

4.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-accused Balwinder Singh @ Chandi that he has been continuing in custody since 13.4.2010 and the challan has been filed after completion of investigation and however, even charge has not been framed and hence, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. He further contends that the Petitioner was involved by the police in case FIR No. 91 dated 13.4.2010 registered under Sections 399, 402, 395 IPC at Police Station Samrala and in that case, he has already been released on bail by learned Sessions Court. Further contends that the Petitioner has been involved in this case later on.

5.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-accused Hardeep Singh @ Deep that he was also arrested in case FIR No. 91 dated 13.4.2010 registered under Sections 399, 402, 395 IPC at Police Station Samrala and released on bail by the Court of Sessions. However, later on he was involved in this case. He further contends that he is on bail in all other cases, in which he was involved by the police after involvement in this case.

6.

These facts have not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the State.

7.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that Petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

8.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the petitions for regular bail filed on behalf of Petitioners Balwinder Singh @ Chandi and Hardeep Singh @ Deep are allowed.

9.

Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.