SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Sukhjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-437-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant.

The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's previous grant of regular bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C in a case involving charges under Sections 325, 323, 34, and later Section 304 IPC, based on the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's previous grant of regular bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under Sections 325, 323, 34, and later Section 304 IPC, related to the death of an individual following an argument and physical altercation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to join the investigation when called upon and to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Issues: The issues involved the addition of Section 304 IPC to the case after the petitioner was granted regular bail, and the circumstances surrounding the altercation and death of the individual.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's previous grant of regular bail, the circumstances of the case, and the lack of misuse of bail as grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with the condition to join the investigation when called upon and to cooperate with the investigating agency, with a warning that non-cooperation could lead to cancellation of bail.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 119 dated 01.08.2019, registered under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC (later on Section 308 IPC was added and now again Section 304 IPC is added), at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2020, but Section 304 IPC was added by the investigating agency on 01.08.2020 even after the presentation of the challan.

4. It is a case, in which Gursewak Singh (since deceased) was a Conductor with a bus bearing registration No. PB-13L-7107 and on 18.07.2019 in the bus itself, an argument took place between Gursewak Singh and petitioner-Sukhjit Singh, whereupon the petitioner had given a kick blow on his stomach and Gursewak Singh had fallen down from the bus and received multiple injuries on his head, due to which he had died. The petitioner had a suspicion that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife. Except for Section 304 IPC, the petitioner was released on regular bail vide order dated 24.01.2020 and has never misused the concession of bail.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has never misused the concession of regular bail and Section 304 IPC was added subsequently.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds merit in this petition and the same is allowed.

9. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. It is made clear that if pursuant to and in compliance with this order, the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigating agency, the investigating agency would be liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top