High CourtsSingle Bench

Gurmail Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0076

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avneesh Jhingan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 44242, 2432 Of 2020
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

17 paragraphs · 262 words

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-44242 of 2020 (Gurmail Singh Versus State of Punjab) and CRM-M-2432 of 2021 (Tarlok Singh Versus State of

Punjab) by a common order.

These are two regular bail in FIR No. 193 dated 2.11.2020, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Navi

Baradari, District Jalandhar.

The facts in narrow compass are that a secret information was received that certain persons including the petitioners are preparing fake documents

for filing the bail bonds and are giving fake evidence for the accused confined in jail. A raid was conducted on 2.11.2020. The petitioners were

apprehended at the spot while preparing the documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that offence is of Magistrate trial, the petitioners are in custody since November, 2020, the investigation is

complete and no recovery is to be made.

Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail and submits that the issue is with regard to preparing of fake documents.

Considering the nature of offence; custody period; that no recovery is to be made; investigation is complete and conclusion of trial is likely to take

time, the petitioners (Gurmail Singh and Tarlok Singh) are granted bail subject to their furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

The petition is allowed.

However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.