Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab - CRM-28096-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3452 (25 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Misc.No.28096-M of 2006

Date of decision : 7.7.2006

Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Baath, AAG, Punjab.

ORDER :

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.9 dated 27.1.2004, registered under Sections 452/323/324/427/447/506/511/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Rahon, Distt. Nawanshahar.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that all the offences except the offence under Section 452 IPC are bailable. The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 4.2.2004. He, however, was unable to appear in Court. Thereafter, though he absented himself, he surrendered on 8.3.2006 and since then he has been behind bars. It is further contended that his co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order passed in Crl.Misc.No.7374-M of 2004 dated 24.1.2005.

Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that as the petitioner remained absent from the Court, he should not be granted the benefit of bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The offences complained of, except the offence under Section 452 IPC, are bailable. The petitioner's plea for bail was rejected by the trial Court, as the petitioner had remained a proclaimed offender. The petitioner is now behind bars since 8.3.2006. The petitioner has undergone sufficient punishment for his absence from Court.

Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate,Nawanshahar.

While releasing the petitioner on bail, the trial Court would be at liberty, to impose such conditions, as it may deem appropriate, which would discourage the petitioner from absenting himself once again from the Court.

7.7.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )

GS 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.