🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Rupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Case No: CRM No. M 31570 of 2010

Date of Decision: Nov. 25, 2010

Acts Referred: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2)#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471

Hon'ble Judges: Ram Chand Gupta, J

Bench: Single Bench

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

Ram Chand Gupta, J.@mdashThe present petition has been filed by Petitioner Rupinder Singh u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking

anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 204 dated 29.8.2010 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines,

Batala.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.10.2010 passed the following order :

CRM No. 56217 of 2010

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRM No. M 31570 of 2010

Contends that Petitioner was never served with any notice nor was asked to produce the buses, which are lying in a private workshop at

Jalandhar. Further contends that Petitioner is ready to produce the buses as and when required. Further contends that on the similar facts, another

FIR No. 205 dated 29.8.2010 under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, was registered against the Petitioner

in which concession of interim bail was granted to him by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Mi. No. M 28713 of 2010.

Notice of motion for 25.11.2010.

However, Petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his

satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

4. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 27.10.2010.

5. It has also been stated by learned Counsel for the State that Petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any

custodial interrogation.

6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that Petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true

facts in the Court, if released on bail.

7. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of

Petitioner Rupinder Singh is accepted and order dated 27.10.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the Petitioner is, hereby, made absolute

subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure