High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 December 2012 · Citation: (2012) 12 P&H CK 0068

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 452
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M-37792 of 2012
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

8 paragraphs · 335 words

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Jagtar Singh son of Tarsem Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No. 85 dated 08.04.2010, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

3.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 03.12.2012:-

The learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the complainant has lodged the present case against the petitioner as a counter blast to the complaint filed by his (petitioner) mother. The argument is that even otherwise, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. He was earlier allowed bail in the case, but subsequently, since he did not appear, so, he was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court without any cogent reasons.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 21.12.2012.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender on 10.12.2012 and the trial Court would admit him to (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

4.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed his affidavit to the effect that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioner, in pursuance of the order of this Court, have already been accepted and attested by the trial Court. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by means of order dated 03.12.2012 is hereby made absolute.