CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67(A) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294, 34, 341, 354, 467
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-33258 of 2011 (O and 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

9 paragraphs · 322 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.157 dated 23.07.2011 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 354, 294, 506, 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 04.11.2011 passed the following order:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not such as would justify his custodial interrogation.

Notice of motion for 08.12.2011.

In the meantime, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

3.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 04.11.2011.

4.

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instructions of ASI Dalwinder Singh that petitioner has joined the investigation and that investigation has already been completed, challan has been prepared and that petitioner is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

5.

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

6.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Santokh Singh is accepted and order dated 04.11.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.