← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/3955/2020allowed

Vikramjit Singh Painthe v. State Of Punjab And Another

2021-08-26Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-3955-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 26.8.2021 Vikramjit Singh Painthe .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Arshdeep Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a criminal complaint No.COMI/68/2015 dated 8.7.2015 titled as 'Nirmala Vs. Sonu and others' wherein he has been ordered to be summoned vide order dated 27.9.2019 (Annexure P-2). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter having arisen out of a private complaint there is no question of his custodial interrogation and that even otherwise his detention is not going to serve any purpose as the proceedings before the trial Court have been ordered to be stayed vide order dated 15.2.2021 passed in CRM-M6876-2021 wherein the petitioner has challenged the charges framed against him.

MOHAN SINGH 2021.08.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

- 2 - CRM-M-3955-2020 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner in any case has put in appearance before the trial Court pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court on 30.1.2020 and has been released on interim bail and has otherwise been regularly appearing before the trial Court.

4.

Opposing the petition the learned State counsel has submitted that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner pertaining to murder, no case for grant of bail is made out. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Since the matter arises out of a criminal complaint, it goes without saying that there is no room for any custodial interrogation. Further since the proceedings in any case have been ordered to be stayed, the petitioner need not be detained at this stage as no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner when the trial itself is at a standstill. Further, since the petitioner has furnished interim bail bonds and has been regularly appearing before the trial Court, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted. The interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2020 are hereby absolute. The trial Court is however, at liberty to impose any other condition upon the petitioner so as to ensure his regularly appearance before the trial Court.

26.8.2021 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No MOHAN SINGH 2021.08.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document