← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29132/2024disposed of

Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-06-03Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal2 pages

CRM-M-29132-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29132-2024 Date of Decision : 03.06.2024 SUKHDEV SINGH ... PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :

Mr.Randeep Singh, Advocate for Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.S.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

This is 2nd bail application. The petitioner through petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Code, 1973, is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.49 dated 24.03.2009, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2.

On the earlier occasion, the petitioner preferred CRM-M46574-2019 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2019. The order dated 28.11.2019 is reproduced as below : "Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.49 dated 24.03.2009 registered under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 148 read with Section 149 of Anju Goel 2024.06.03 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-29132-2024 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural, Punjab.

Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Inspector Tarsem Singh, Police Station Majitha, wherein it is mentioned that petitioner is neither named in the above said FIR nor in the cross version. Learned State counsel states that petitioner is not required in the above case. Copy of the reply has been supplied to counsel opposite.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petition for anticipatory bail is rendered infructuous.

Disposed off as such."

3.

Mr.S.S.Aulakh, State counsel, at the outset, submits that in view of affidavit (Annexure P-8) filed before this Court, the petitioner is not required and he has filed petition before this Court without any reason.

4.

In the wake of statement of learned State counsel, the present petition is hereby disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 03.06.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anju Goel 2024.06.03 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh