CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sukhdev Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 02 P&H CK 0377

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 325
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-35520 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

6 paragraphs · 368 words

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a case registered against the Petitioners under Sections 307, 325, 323, 148 & 149 IPC at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, vide FIR No. 131 dated 8th September, 2010.

2.

Pursuant to order dated January 18, 2011, affidavit of Sukhchain Singh Gill, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda has been filed in court. The same is taken on record. It has been stated therein that instructions issued vide ADGP Crime letter No. 2070-95/ CR/LA-1 dated 31st January, 2011, have been withdrawn and all the Commissioners of Police/Senior Superintendents of Police have been directed to ensure that investigating officers shall appear regularly before the High Court. The explanation given in the said affidavit is accepted.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioners Crl. Misc. No. M-35520 of 2010 2 were not named in the FIR. They were named in a supplementary statement of the complainant on the same day. According to learned Counsel, all the injuries were initially attributed by the complainant to Nachhatar Singh, Malkiat Singh and Balkar Singh alias Kari Singh. He also submits that Petitioners have been in custody since 18th September, 2010 and investigation of the case has been completed. Thus, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the Petitioner in custody any longer.

4.

Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Jaswinder Singh, who is present in court) has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the allegations against the Petitioners are serious in nature. He, however, does not dispute the fact that challan has been presented before the competent court of jurisdiction and trial is in progress.

5.

Heard.

6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, the period of incarceration of the Petitioners and the fact that the trial may take some time to conclude, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served by detaining the Petitioners in custody any longer. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the Petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.