High Courts(1996) 08 P&H CK 0132

Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 August 1996

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S.Sudhalkar, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12365-M of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 366 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

1.

This is an application for bail by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR 10, dated 21.2.1996 for the offences under Sections 302/34/380/411 IPC.

2.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AAG, Punjab. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the only offence against the petitioner involving him in the alleged incident is that of extra judicial confession before one Atma Singh son of Duta Singh Jat resident of Churian Mutlaka and the discovery of the revolver.

3.

Learned AAG relied on the said evidence when he opposed the bail application.

4.

If the statement of Atma Singh is to be seen, it is apparent from it that Atma Singh is on visiting terms with the police and he has stated that the petitioner may not be tortured and that he is prepared to tell the truth. That means that the statement made before this witness cannot, at this stage, be said to be without any inducement.

5.

Looking to the said statement, it also transpires that police had known about the whereabouts of the revolver by virtue of the said statement of Atma Singh. Therefore, the subsequent recovery is assailed by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the case of Arun Kumar v. State, 1996(7) CLJ 2280. In that case, Delhi High Court has held that the disclosure of facts known to the police or not in exclusive knowledge of the accused are not admissible evidence.

6.

Looking to this position and that this is the only evidence at present shown to me which is against the petitioner, I find it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. I make it clear that these observations are limited only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case when it comes up for trial.

For the above reasons, this bail application is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the some of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount. The bail bond be furnished before the learned Trial Court.