CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 P&H CK 0294

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319, 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 34, 427, 452
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M. No. M-30254 of 2010 (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

14 paragraphs · 361 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition filed u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 207, dated 30.12.2007, registered under Sections 307, 452, 427, 34 IPC, at Police Station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, in which the Petitioner has been summoned to face trial u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure

2.

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

3.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.10.2010, passed the following order:

Crl.M. No. 54135 of 2010

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M. No. M-30254 of 2010

Contends that Petitioner was found innocent by the police and however, he has been summoned by learned trial Court to face trial by allowing application of prosecution filed u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 30.9.2010, Annexure P9. Further contends that he is ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial.

Notice of motion for 16.11.2010.

In the meantime, Petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court on the date fixed and in case he so appears and applies for regular bail, he be admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.

4.

It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court and has been admitted to interim bail vide order dated 18.10.2010.

5.

These facts have not been disputed by learned State counsel as well as learned Counsel for the complainant.

6.

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.

7.

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 14.10.2010, granting interim bail to Petitioner-Satnam Singh, is, hereby made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.

8.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.