Simranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN TH HE HIGH COURT FOR THE E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH HARYANA AT CH (*(+, ,- 12 / *)"*("( (*()
""" . // / """/31 &
! "#$ %&! & % Mr. +, %- * , (+ . / /%0 1 %'#"
())(*( %.* /&+
(*(+,- 2* *
3
'%6 ) * /-4 , 77+
8#(5
!
"
#
$ !%&%
, / %& '() . * *& & *
2 * * *
&* ,+* 5-1
( 94 %19%11, .
.&.& . - - 3 :.- * ** * & * ;- . * *& *.. * * * * : &*
= *& &&* * *& * . . & * *& ** #- * - &* "
> - * -** & *
* & & *& * #& *&*
&& 3 . 3* & !
% & *. *< <&* -
. *.
. - + - *& &
? . + * *
4
*&.- 6
3 * **
. &.
. @* ** : &.- *- '
)
* . * & 3 - & * *& .& ( ** Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 Cr riLJ 826 and Sh 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. M More hokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna :
so, while a adjourning the case to 22.08.201 14 since the mandatory period o of 30 days had n not elapsed, the trial learned Cou urt failed to consider the fact th hat - 6 & & &* 1 *& .3* *. * *&* ** . (6 &$ " %
!
" ## % -. &- -. .. - * * .&*
'%6 ) * / - 4 , 7 7 7+
8#( 5
!
"
# $ !%& %
, / % %& '() . * *& * 3 . 3 *
&
* .
.
1 *
. *
$& & & 1 *A
2 ** * &
#& *** .* & *& & & &
:.- 1 *& ( A ** ./= - - % %& ) (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE *)"*("(*()
Whet ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whet ther reportable Yes/No