Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/2393/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No.2393 of 2019 Date of Decision: 30.12.2019 ____________________________________________________________ Pipan Singh alias Dipu …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. ____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner: Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent: M/s Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Sequel to order dated 26.12.2019, ASI Jawala Singh, Police chowki, Bali Chowki, District Mandi, H.P., has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record fresh status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Status report having been filed by the learned Additional Advocate General, clearly reveals that only two witnesses, out of 24 remain to be examined and for that purpose, matter has been fixed on 8.1.2020.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, learned counsel representing the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, if required and desired.
4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid prayer having been made by learned counsel representing the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
5. However, before parting, this Court having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for the last two years and nine months and only two prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, this Court hopes and trust that learned trial Court below shall make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 31st January, 2020. Otherwise also, it has been already made aware to all Courts on the administrative side that jail appeals as well as cases of under trial are required to be heard and decided on priority basis.
6. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, undertakes before this Court that remaining witnesses proposed to be examined on 8.1.2020, shall be produced positively on that date, enabling the court below to do the needful well within the time stipulated by this Court.
7. Registry is directed to apprise the learned Court below with regard to passing of instant order, to enable it to do the needful within stipulated time.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge 30th December, 2019 (shankar)