Sukhpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-13204-2015 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13204-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 15, 2015 Sukhpreet Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr.P.S.Mirpur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab.

........

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.(Oral) CRM-13279-2015 Criminal miscellaneous application for exemption is allowed in terms of the prayer made, subject to all just exceptions.

CRM disposed of.

CRM-M-13204-2015 Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Sukhpreet Singh, son of Harjinder Singh, resident of village Kot Shamir, Tehsil and District Bathinda, who has been booked for having committed the MEENU 2015.10.16 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CRM-M-13204-2015 (O&M) -2offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.341, dated 30.09.2014, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda, District Bathinda. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had run away from the examination centre and for that he has already been punished by the competent authorities of the University for using unfair means, therefore, he may be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Malkiat Singh, Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda, District Bathinda, submits that the petitioner had asked some one else to take examination on his behalf; report received from the Handwriting Expert would clearly spell out that some other person had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to take the examination and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would facilitate the Investigating Agency to know the correct method adopted by the petitioner for asking somebody else to appear on his behalf in the examination centre. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.

Interim directions issued vide order dated 27.04.2015 are vacated.

October 15, 2015 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE MEENU 2015.10.16 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh