Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sital Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. - CRM-48622-m-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 2288 (4 April 2006)


Crl. Misc. No.48622-M of 2003

Date of decision: April 21, 2006.

Sital Singh



State of Punjab and Ors.


Present: Shri Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.S. Sewak, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Shri Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

In this petition under section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the prayer is for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.3 and 4 vide order dated July 18, 2003 passed in Crl. Misc. No.44954-M of 2002 in the case, registered vide FIR No.68 dated 5.5.2002, under section 420, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana.

Notice was issued to respondents No.3 and 4 as well as to the State of Punjab.

In reply to this petition, an affidavit has been filed by R.K.

Sharma, DSP, City-1, Ludhiana, para 2 of which reads as follows:- "2. That in addition to the previous cases, the following three more cases are also pending:-

(i)Case FIR No.199 dated 17.9.2004 under section 420,406,120-B IPC, P.S. Division No.6, Ludhiana is pending in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana and the respondents No.3 and 4 in the present criminal miscellaneous have been declared as proclaimed offenders; (iv) Case FIR No.163 dated 13.10.2004 under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, P.S. Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, proceedings for declaring respondents no.3 and 4 as proclaimed offenders are pending;

(v) Case FIR No.37 dated 12.4.2005 under section 279, 337, 307, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Ludhiana has been registered against respondents No.3 and 4 and challan/final report is being presented in court shortly.

From the above reproduced contents of the affidavit, it is apparent that respondents No.3 and 4 have misused the concession of bail granted by this court on July 18, 2003 in-as-much as they are found to be involved in atleast three more criminal cases registered thereafter.

Having regard to the fact that concession of bail granted in this case appears to have been misused by respondents No.3 and 4, this petition is allowed and the order dated July 18, 2003 is re-called and as a consequence thereto, Crl. Misc. No.44954-M of 2002, titled as Balwinder Singh & Another v. State of Punjab, in which pre-arrest bail was sought by respondents No.3 and 4 in FIR No.68 dated 5.5.2002, under section 420, 406, 34 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, is dismissed.

April 21, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


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


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 |

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