Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/1043/2009 of TEJ SINGH Vs STATE on 31 December 2009
No. 1043 of 2009 31.12.2009 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Shubh Mahajan and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, but his bail was cancelled since he tried to win over the
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.
31.12.2009 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsra, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Shubh Mahajan and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent.
Heard.
The petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, but his bail was cancelled since he tried to win over the witnesses. It was submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of main witness Harish Kumar has been recorded and only formal witnesses are to be recorded. This statement is incorrect as per the statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate General after verification and statement of the main eye witness Harish Kumar is yet to be recorded and the case is fixed for evidence on 24[th]February, to 26[th] February, 2010. Once the bail has been cancelled by the learned trial Court after consideration of the allegations and the statement of the main eye witness has not been recorded, no case is made out for grant of bail. However, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for bail after the statement of main witness Harish Kumar has been recorded by the learned trial Court.
In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.
( V.K. Ahuja ),
December 31, 2009 Judge
(BSS)