SUMEDH SINGH SAINI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

SUMEDH SINGH SAINI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Considering the 29-year delay in lodging the FIR, the 9-year gap after the Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar decision with no fresh proceedings by the deceased's father (for whom liberty was reserved), the fact that Section 302 IPC was not initially alleged and was added later based on statements of two co-accused who became approvers, and the appellant's retired status (retired as DGP in 2018), the Court found that the appellant had made out a case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Parties
Appellant/accused: Sumedh Singh Saini; Respondent/state: State of Punjab; Informant: Palwinder Singh Multani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2020 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Anticipatory Bail Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Bail, Delay in Lodging FIR, Quashing of FIR, Approvers, Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Anticipatory Bail Delay in Lodging FIR Quashing of FIR Approvers Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumedh Singh Saini

Appellant/accused

State of Punjab

Respondent/state

Palwinder Singh Multani

Informant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2020 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Anticipatory Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether the long delay (29 years) in lodging the FIR and the gap after the Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar decision (9 years) justify grant of anticipatory bail
  3. 3 Whether the present FIR amounts to a second FIR on same facts and is maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

Considering the 29-year delay in lodging the FIR, the 9-year gap after the Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar decision with no fresh proceedings by the deceased's father (for whom liberty was reserved), the fact that Section 302 IPC was not initially alleged and was added later based on statements of two co-accused who became approvers, and the appellant's retired status (retired as DGP in 2018), the Court found that the appellant had made out a case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted

Orders

  • Impugned judgments and orders of the High Court and the Additional Sessions Court dismissing anticipatory bail applications are quashed and set aside
  • In case of arrest in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020 registered at P.S. City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, the appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties of like amount, surrendering his passport and cooperating with the investigation (without...