Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Shekher Dhawan, J. disposed of the writ petition after modifying the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

A revision petition was directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge whereby the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

The petitioner was held guilty under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Penal Code.

Facts, in brief, are that complainant-Rakhpal along with Prem Singh were going on a motorcycle. While they were on their way they found that the four other persons were going in a jeep being driven by the driver was hit by the truck which was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner.  Because of the collision, persons sitting in the jeep sustained injuries and out of them, Gajender and Pawan died on the way to the hospital and injured Sompal alias Billu and Devender were admitted to the hospital. The driver of the offending truck ran away from the spot but was identified by the complainant and Prem Singh. Injured Sompal alias Billu also succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered.

The trial court held that the petitioner was guilty of commission of offence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. It was contended by the counsel that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction and a lenient view on the point of the sentence be taken as the petitioner has already undergone the actual sentence of 8 months and 22 days (including remissions) against the awarded sentence of 1 year as per the custody certificate.

Ashish Sanghi, counsel for the State contended that petitioner does not deserve any concession regarding the sentence and the present revision petition be dismissed.

The Court opined that both the Courts below have already appreciated the evidence in its perspective manner. As such, the present revision petition, qua judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, stands dismissed. It was further held that as the petitioner had already undergone the actual sentence and thus the same was to be modified and reduced to the period already undergone while remaining in the custody.[Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1226, decided on 15-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Ajay Tewari, J., passed an order to release the petitioner on regular bail on the ground that no evidence was made against the petitioner except for the statement of the cohort.

The application was filed under Section 439 CrPC for regular bail in the case registered under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

The facts of the case were that information was received by the police regarding the purchase of the 4 kilograms of heroine and links with Pakistani smugglers who had called for heavy quantity of opium and had kept the same beyond the barbed wires. After a few days of investigation, Kuldeep Singh who possessed consignment was arrested and on his statement about the present petitioner being cohort, petitioner was arrested. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that investigation was still pending and police were yet to collect evidence about the petitioner. Hence, the present application to invoke the special power of the High Court to grant regular bail was made.

Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG, Punjab submitted that no recovery of the heroine was made from the petitioner and that no evidence had been gathered. It was also submitted that the petitioner was in the custody for nine months, for which a custody certificate was placed on record.

Considering the submission, the High Court granted the bail on the ground that the petitioner had already served nine months in the custody and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future.[Gurchait Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 564, decided on 16-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. allowed an application whereby a suspension of sentence was prayed.

The facts of the case are that the appellant was arrested in early 2005 and by the time the custody certificate was issued; the appellant had undergone actual incarceration of over 13 years and 5 months. It was found that the appellant was convicted under Section 302 RPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The High Court relied on the case of Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355 where it was held that if the appeal is pending for five years and there is no chance of an appeal being heard in near future then in such a case the applicant/appellant should be enlarged on bail.

The application was thus allowed. [Darshan Lal v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 1011, Order dated 27-12-2018]