High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Kashmir Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 September 2017 · Citation: (2017) 09 P&H CK 0023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anupinder Singh Grewal
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438(2)</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-120B>Section 120B</a>, <a href=1767-420>Se
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
M-21845 of 2017 (O&M)
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

45 paragraphs · 365 words

CRM-30840-2017

1.

This is application for exemption from filing certified

copies of Annexures P-3 to P-7 as well as placing on record the

photostat copies of the same.

2.

The application is allowed and Annexures P-3 to P-7

are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-30841-2017

3.

This is application for placing on record Affidavit of the

petitioner dated 13.09.2017.

4.

Application is allowed and affidavit of the petitioner

dated 13.09.2017 is taken on record.

CRM No. M-21845-2017

5.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 81

dated 13.05.2017 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,

120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar

(Rural).

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

allegations against the petitioner are that in the year 1992, he

had identified Lakha Singh as guarantor for Gurnam Singh who

had obtained loan for purchase of a truck from Punjab Financial

Corporation. He further contends that the entire amount, which

was due to the Punjab Financial Corporation, has been paid by the

petitioner and his brother-Manjit Singh.

7.

Learned counsel for the complainant contends that an

amount of `1,10,000/- remains to be paid by the petitioner to the

complainant, as the complainant had himself paid that amount to

Punjab Financial Corporation to save the land from auction.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if

any amount has to be paid by the petitioner, he will pay the

same.

9.

This Court vide order dated 06.07.2017, had directed

the petitioner to join investigation and in the event of his arrest,

he was to be released on ad-interim bail to the satisfaction of

Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions

envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

10.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from HC

Major Singh states that in pursuance to the order dated

06.07.2017 the petitioner has joined investigation and is not

required for custodial interrogation.

11.

In view of the above and without expressing any

opinion on the merits of case, the order dated 06.07.2017,

granting ad-interim bail to the petitioner, is hereby made

absolute. However, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions

envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.