← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29711/2015disposed of

Gurmej Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-10-29Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan2 pages



           Date of decision: 29th October, 2015  Gurmej Singh

Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

Respondent        !  ! 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Brar, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

 !"#  $ Allegations against the petitioner Gurmej Singh in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.79 dated 03.05.2014 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar under Sections 376/306/420/1209B IPC, are that deceased Pardeep Kaur daughter of brother of wife of the petitioner, who was got married by the petitioner and his wife/co9accused Davinder Kaur, committed suicide on 03.05.2014 by hanging and the present case was lodged on the statement of her husband Harvinder Singh alleging that Davinder Kaur had forced the deceased to enter into an illicit relationship with her husband, present petitioner, in the year 2001 and which has facilitated subsequent to her marriage the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.10.29 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court



    commission of the present crime and there are allegations that the petitioner has prepared movie clips of the deceased in a compromising position.

Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate that neither any movie clips have been taken into possession by the police which is duly conceded too at the bar by Mr.C.S. Brar, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab on instructions from ASI Jagdish Kumar and that even lone evidence comprising of suicide note, body of the writing has never been examined by an expert and thus, in the light of contentions of the petitioner's counsel it is primarily a property dispute whereby husband is trying to oust the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 04.05.2014 and the culpability, if any, shall be determined at the time of trial.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner coupled with the fact that the trial will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner in the present case is not warranted. Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar. The present petition stands disposed off accordingly. #  !$   %&'()"    RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.10.