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
4 paragraphs · 235 wordsV.K. Jhanji, J.
Admittedly, the petitioners had been arrested in regard to this very occurrence on 8.9.1995 and were released on bail on 11.9.1995. Later, they were also charged under Sections 307 and 326, IPC. On adding of offences under Sections 307 and 326, IPC, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of prearrest bail which was declined. The present application is for prearrest bail.
At the time of motion hearing, on 20.10.1995 the petitioners were allowed prearrest bail pending notice.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve the concession of prearrest bail. Petitioners had already been arrested in regard to this very occurrence and were released on bail on 11.9.1995. At the time when they were released on bail, the prosecution had not submitted that recovery is to be effected from the petitioners; rather their case was that they are no more required for the purpose of investigation. It has also come that there are injuries on Kuldip Singh and Jagdeep Singh, petitioners, which are yet to be explained by the complainant or the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 20.10.1995 whereby the petitioners were allowed prearrest bail is made absolute. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court without permission of the Investigation Officer.