GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of a complaint before the Magistrate, the petitioners are summoned to face allegations falling under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. In this respect, my learned predecessor had passed the order, the operative part of which is as follows :-

(2.) THE petitioners thereafter approached the Additional Sessions Judge for grant of bail. That prayer was turned down by making observation that the petitioners should surrender first and only thereupon their application for bail can be considered. Since the petitioners had appeared before the Court and then physically made themselves available for the custody of the Court, there does not seem to be any propriety of taking them actually in custody and send them behind the bars for whatever small period. I further find that the complaint in this case has been filed after a gap of 18 days since the initial registration of the offence under Section 304-A and 279 IPC in respect of the same victim. Bail in the complaint case against the petitioner is granted on each of them executing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate before whom the complaint case is pending enquiry as per Section 20 Cr.P.C. In that event if the Magistrate finds that the case deserves commital to the Court of Sessions, he may pass appropriate order as regards the custody of the accused in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Petition disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.