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

2025 Supreme(P&H) 578

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J.
Satinderpal Singh Alias Laddi – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-47278-2023
Decided on : 17-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab; Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail in case FIR No.26 dated 22.02.2023 registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 34 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner and Satnam Singh, co-accused were neighbours of the complainant and used to take tuitions from Daljit Kaur, wife of the complainant. However, the behaviour of the complainant was very cruel towards his wife and he used to beat her up daily. Due to this, there was a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife Daljit Kaur and the complainant had also filed a divorce petition Annexure P-2 against his wife. Even the petitioner and his friend requested the complainant to mend his ways, but he started threatening the petitioner and his co-accused. He further contends that the FIR in the present case has been got registered by the complainant by colluding with the local police. In any case, the challan has been presented in the present case long ago and the complainant has been examined. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 22.02.2023 and is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 10 months. Since the injured has already been examined in the present case, the petitioner would not be in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses any further.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the present case, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 10 months. The complainant/injured has already been examined in the present case and the petitioner is not in a position to influence the witnesses of the prosecution any more.

6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

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