Jarnail Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-19945 of 2017 (O&M) Jarnail Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-20400 of 2017 (O&M) Lovepreet Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Date of Decision: August 09, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.Gurpreet S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as the same have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.63 dated 17.04.2017 under Vineet Gulati 2017.08.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Sections 379-B, 336, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,
CRM No.M-19945 of 2017 and connected petition -2registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Kulwinder Singh @ Inder, son of petitioner Jarnail Singh entered into agreement to purchase land owned by Ranjit Singh and son of the petitioner Jarnail Singh is in actual possession of the property in dispute. Learned State counsel stated that the trolley with the crop was found at the place of the complainant.
The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending them to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 31.05.2017 passed in CRM No.M-19945 of 2017 and order dated 02.06.2017 passed in CRM No.M-20400 of 2017, granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.
August 09, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.08.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh