Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANWAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KANWAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRM-59141-M-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1091 (22 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. MISC. NO. 59141-M OF 2005

DATE OF DECISION: 07.03.2006

KANWAR SINGH

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr S.S. Narula, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

---

ORDER:

Heard.

Offence alleged is under sections 302/34/120-IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

On 8.11.2005, the following order was passed:- "Sube Singh lodged FIR dated 12.9.2004 alleging that his son Vijay, who was having some dispute with Suresh, Joginder and Mukesh regarding a plot, appeared to have been murdered by the said three persons by themselves or with their companions.

On 14.9.2004, the said three persons were arrested.

It came out during investigation that Kanwar Singh petitioner also wanted to purchase the plot and he held a meeting in the office of Dalbir Singh, in which Dharampal and Raju were also present. On 6.10.2004, the above three accused were declared innocent by DSP Ram Chander, who was investigating the case.

Again the investigating agency implicated the three accused, who were earlier discharged and they were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Thereafter, the investigation was again transferred to Inspector Dhanna Ram CIA, who again declared the three accused to be innocent and implicated five other accused, namely, Raju, Dharampal, Babloo alias Jaibir, Narender and Dilbag and the petitioner was implicated as 6th accused under

section 120-B IPC vide report dated 31.8.2005. Dharampal and Jaibir alias Babloo are said to have died and it is stated that they have been murdered while Dilbag has been arrested and is in custody. It is further stated that Raju and Narender are absconding.

The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which was granted by the Court of Session subject, inter alia, to the condition that the order will be operative only for one month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was sought to be implicated almost one year after the occurrence. The investigating agency has already changed its opinion thrice and there was no tangible material for implicating the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner will face the proceedings in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He seeks further time for pointing out the material, if any, which may, prima facie, connect the petitioner to the alleged offence.

Adjourned to 6.12.2005.

In the meanwhile, on being arrested, the petitioner will be granted interim bail by the Investigating Officer subject to his making himself available for interrogation as and when required and not making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and not leaving India without permission of the Court, and complying with such other conditions as may be laid down by the Investigating Officer." Counsel for the petitioner submits that the challan has been presented qua the other co-accused and so far only material indicated is that co-accused made statement in custody against the petitioner.

Counsel for the State, however, submits that there is further material in the form of statements of Ashok and Dalbir to the effect that the petitioner was interested in purchasing the plot and thus, he had a motive and the petitioner also made calls from his mobile phone near Delhi and his plea that he was at Panchkula has not been found to be correct. It is also pointed out that at this stage, the investigation cannot be satisfactorily completed unless the petitioner is arrested having regard to seriousness of the allegations in this case.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed at this stage. The petitioner will, however, be granted bail after custodial investigation is completed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

March 07, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.