{"id":95720,"date":"2006-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2"},"modified":"2016-03-02T19:38:11","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T14:08:11","slug":"bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  757 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nBhupinder Singh & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJarnail Singh & Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5850 of 2005)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
\nlearned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
\ncancelling the bail granted to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Factual background in a nutshell is as under:\n<\/p>\n
On 16.4.2003 appellant No.1-Bhupinder Singh was
\nmarried to Smt. Kamaljit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the
\n‘deceased’).  On 2.8.2004 she was found dead. On the
\nallegation that the appellants had committed murder of the
\ndeceased, First Information Report (in short the ‘FIR’) was
\nlodged by the Respondent Jarnail Singh and on that basis
\nappellants 1 and 2 (Bhupinder and Balwinder) were arrested
\non 5.8.2004.  Subsequently on 7.8.2004 appellant No.3
\n(Kanwaljit Kaur) was arrested.  Prayer for bail was made before
\nlearned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Batala on 4.11.2004
\nwho refused to grant bail to the appellants.  Their stand before
\nthe Court in essence was that since challan was not filed  in
\ntime, they were entitled  to bail in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(ii)
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
\n‘Cr.P.C.’).  Learned Magistrate rejected the application stating
\nthat the challan was presented in court prior to the completion
\nof 90 days and therefore, it was presented within the
\nprescribed period.  The order was challenged before learned
\nSessions Judge, Gurdaspur who granted bail relying on
\ncertain decisions of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High
\nCourt (State v. B.B. Singh<\/a> [2005 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter
\n135], Amer v. State of Karnataka [2005 (1) Recent Criminal
\n107], and Nadeem Ahmed v. State [2004 Cr.L.J. 4798] holding
\nthat in relation to Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code,
\n1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) period of 60 days of remand would be
\napplicable and not 90 days for the purpose of Section
\n167(2)(a)(ii). Questioning correctness of the said decision a
\nrevision petition was filed before the High Court by the
\ncomplainant-respondent No.1.  The High Court referring to the
\nproviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C held that the
\nperiod during which the challan has to be filed is 90 days and
\nnot 60 days as held by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore,
\nthe order granting bail to the appellants was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
According to learned counsel for the appellant learned
\nSessions Judge was correct in his view and the High Court has
\nerred in holding that the period is 90 days and not 60 days. It
\nwas further submitted that though it was the stand of the
\nState that the challan was filed within a period of 60 days it is
\ncontrary to the materials on record.  The challan which had
\nbeen filed was incomplete and in fact requisite documents did
\nnot accompany it.\n<\/p>\n
Per contra learned counsel for the complainant and State
\nof Punjab submitted that the view taken by the High Court is
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
In reply to this stand about the defective challan learned
\ncounsel for the respondents submitted that the challan was in
\nfact filed, some documents were filed later on, and that did not
\nmake the challan, filed within 60 days, incomplete.\n<\/p>\n
The points raised needs careful consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Sections 304(B) IPC and Section 167(2)(a) Cr.PC read as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“304B (IPC):   Dowry death
\n(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by
\nany burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
\nthan under normal circumstances within seven
\nyears of her marriage and it is shown that soon
\nbefore her death she was subjected to cruelty
\nor harassment by her husband or any relative
\nof her husband for, or in connection with, any
\ndemand for dowry, such death shall be called
\n“dowry death”, and such husband or relative
\nshall be deemed to have caused her death.
\nExplanation.–For the purpose of this sub-
\nsection, “dowry” shall have the same meaning
\nas in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
\n1961 (28 of 1961).\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
\npunished with imprisonment for a term which
\nshall not be less than seven years but which
\nmay extend to imprisonment for life.]
\n“167 Cr.PC: Procedure when investigation can
\nnot be completed in twenty four houses.-\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/p>\n
Provided that <\/p>\n
(a)  the Magistrate may authorise the detention
\nof the accused person, otherwise than in the
\ncustody of the police, beyond the period of
\nfifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate
\ngrounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate
\nshall authorise the detention of the accused
\nperson in custody under this paragraph for a
\ntotal period exceeding<\/p>\n
(i) ninety days, where the investigation
\nrelates to an offence punishable with
\ndeath, imprisonment for life or
\nimprisonment for a term of not less than
\nten years;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation
\nrelates to any other offence,<\/p>\n
and, on the expiry of the said period of
\nninety days, or sixty days, as the case
\nmay be, the accused person shall be
\nreleased on bail if he is prepared to and
\ndoes furnish bail, and every person
\nreleased on bail under this sub-section
\nshall be deemed to be to released under
\nthe provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the
\npurposes of that Chapter;]<\/p>\n
Two questions that essentially arise for consideration are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tIn a case involving offence punishable under
\nSection 304 (B) is the period for filing challan 90
\ndays or 60 days?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tDoes mere filing of challan without relevant
\ndocuments satisfy the requirement of filing the
\nchallan within a stipulated period for the
\npurpose of Section 167(2)(a)?\n<\/p>\n
So far as the factual position is concerned there is no
\ndispute that all the relevant documents were before the Court
\nbefore expiry of 90 days.  In case it is held that the period is
\n90 days and not 60 days in relation to an offence punishable
\nunder Section 304 (B) IPC, the second question would become
\nacademic so far as the facts of the present case are concerned.
\nBut this question crops up in a large number of cases.\n<\/p>\n
A bare reading of Section 304(B) IPC shows that whoever
\ncommits “dowry death” in terms of Section 304(B) IPC shall be
\npunished with an imprisonment for a term which shall not be
\nless than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for
\nlife.  In other words, the minimum sentence is 7 years but in a
\ngiven case sentence of imprisonment for life can be awarded.
\nPut differently, sentence of imprisonment for life can be
\nawarded in respect of an offence punishable under Section
\n304(B) IPC.  Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 consists
\nof three parts.  The first part relates to power of Magistrate to
\nauthorise detention of the accused person. This part consists
\nof two sub-parts. In positive terms it prescribes that no
\nMagistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody,
\nunder this paragraph [meaning sub-section (2)(a)] for a total
\nperiod exceeding (i) 90 days where the investigation relates to
\nan offence punishable under death, imprisonment for life or
\nimprisonment for a terms of not less than 10 years (ii) 60 days
\nwhere the investigation relates to any other offences. The
\nperiod of 90 days is applicable to cases where the investigation
\nrelates to the three categories of offences which are punishable
\nwith (i) death, (ii) imprisonment for life; or (iii) imprisonment
\nfor a term of not less than ten years.  The question is whether
\nSection 304(B) is an offence “punishable” with imprisonment
\nfor life. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. D.K. Garg, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellant on the decision in Rajeev
\nChaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi (AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 2369).  A
\nreference is also made to the decisions of the Jharkhand,
\nDelhi and Karnataka High Court where the ratio in Rajiv
\nChaudhary’s case (supra) has been made applicable to cases
\ninvolving offence punishable under Section 304(B) IPC.  The
\nJharkhand High Court’s decision is Sunil Kumar v. State of
\nJharkhand and Ors. (2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 135). Contrary
\nview appears to have been taken by the Rajasthan and the
\nHimachal Pradesh High Courts in Keshav Dev and Ors. v.
\nState of Rajasthan (2005 Cr.LJ 3306), and State of Himachal
\nPradesh v. Lal Singh<\/a> (2003 Cr.LJ 1668). The Punjab and
\nHaryana High Court appears to have taken somewhat different
\nview in two different cases. In Kuldeep Singh v. State of
\nPunjab RCR (Criminal) 599 it was held that the period is 90
\ndays, as has been held in the case at hand. But a different
\nview (though in relation to some other offences) was taken in
\nAbdul Hamid and Another (Crl. Misc. No. 40599 M of 2005
\ndisposed of on 21st September, 2005).  A bare reading of Rajiv
\nChaudhary’s case (supra) shows that the same related to an
\noffence punishable under Section 386 IPC and the sentence in
\nrespect of the said offence is not less than 10 years.  This
\ncourt held that the expression “not less than” means that the
\nimprisonment should be 10 years or more to attract 90 days
\nperiod. In that context it was said that for the purpose of
\nclause (i) of proviso (a) of Section 167(2) Cr.PC the
\nimprisonment should be for a clear period of 10 years or more.
\nThe position is different in respect of the offence punishable
\nunder Section 304(B) IPC.  In case of Section 304(B) the range
\nvaries between 7 years and imprisonment for life. What should
\nbe the adequate punishment in a given case has to be decided
\nby the Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances
\ninvolved in the particular case. The stage of imposing a
\nsentence comes only after recording the order of conviction of
\nthe accused person. The significant word in the proviso is
\n“punishable”.  The word “punishable” as used in statutes
\nwhich declare that certain offences are punishable in a certain
\nway means liable to be punished in the way designated.  It is
\nordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or liable to
\npunishment, capable of being punished by law or right, may
\nbe punished or liable to be punished, and not must be
\npunished.\n<\/p>\n
In Bouviers Law Dictionary meaning of the word
\n“punishable”, has been given as “liable to punishment”.  In
\n“Words and Phrases” (Permanent Edition) following meaning is
\ngiven:-\n<\/p>\n
“The word “punishable” in a statute
\nstating that a crime is punishable by a
\ndesignated penalty or term of years in the
\nState prison limits the penalty or term of years
\nto the amount or term of, years stated in the
\nstatute”.\n<\/p>\n
“Corpus Juris Secundum” gives the meaning as:\n<\/p>\n
“Deserving of or liable to, punishment;
\ncapable of being punished by law or right; said
\nof persons or offences.  The meaning of the
\nterm is not “must be punished” but “may be
\npunished” or “liable to be punished”.\n<\/p>\n
While dealing with a case relating to Punjab Borstal Act,
\n1926, this Court held that a person convicted under Section
\n302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment is not entitled to
\nbenefit of Section 5 of the said Act as offence of murder is
\npunishable with death.  (See Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of
\nHaryana and Ors.<\/a> (1989 (1) SCC 235).\n<\/p>\n
Where minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed
\nboth are imposable depending on the facts of the cases.  It is
\nfor the Court, after recording conviction, to impose appropriate
\nsentence. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that only the
\nminimum sentence is imposable and not the maximum
\nsentence.   Merely because minimum sentence is provided that
\ndoes not mean that the sentence imposable is only the
\nminimum sentence.  The High Court’s view in the impugned
\norder that permissible period of filing of challan is 90 days is
\nthe correct view.  Contrary view expressed by Jharkhand,
\nDelhi and Karnataka High Courts is not correct. Himachal
\nPradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab and Haryana High Courts
\ntaking the view 90 days is the period have expressed the
\ncorrect view.  Therefore, on that ground alone the appeal fails.
\nBut since another point urged for consideration which as
\nnoted above arises in many cases, we are considering that
\nmatter. In Tara Singh v. The State (AIR 1951SC 441) four
\nJudge Bench of this Court inter-alia had examined the effect of
\nsupplementary report.  The contents of the report as required
\nto be given under Section 173(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure
\nCode, 1898 (in short the ‘old Code’) were examined.  In para
\n14 it was noted as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“When the police drew up their challan of the
\n2nd October, 1949, and submitted it to the
\ncourt on the 3rd, they had in fact completed
\ntheir investigation except for the report of the
\nImperial Serologist and the drawing of a sketch
\nmap of the occurrence. It is always permissible
\nfor the Magistrate to take additional evidence
\nnot set out in the challan. Therefore the mere
\nfact that a second challan was put in on the
\n5th October would not necessarily vitiate the
\nfirst. All that section 173(1)(a) requires is that
\nas soon as the police investigation under
\nChapter XIV of the Code is complete, there
\nshould be forwarded to the Magistrate a report
\nin the prescribed form :\n<\/p>\n
“Setting forth the names of the parties, the
\nnature of the information and the names of the
\nperson who appear to be acquainted with the
\ncircumstances of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
All that appears to have been done in the
\nreport of the 2nd October which the police
\ncalled their incomplete challan. The witnesses
\nnamed in the second challan of the 5th
\nOctober were not witnesses who were
\n“acquainted with the circumstances of the
\ncase.” They were merely formal witnesses on
\nother matters. So also in the supplementary
\nchallan of the 19th. The witnesses named are
\nthe 1st Class Magistrate, Amritsar, who
\nrecorded the dying declaration, and the
\nAssistant Civil Surgeon. They are not
\nwitnesses who were “acquainted with the
\ncircumstances of the case.” Accordingly, the
\nchallan which the police called an incomplete
\nchallan was in fact a completed report of the
\nkind which section 173(1)(a) of the Code
\ncontemplates. There is no force in this
\nargument and we hold that the Magistrate took
\nproper cognisance of the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. deals with report of police
\nofficer on completion of investigation. The said provision so far
\nas relevant reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“173. Report of police officer on completion of
\ninvestigation <\/p>\n
(1)\tEvery investigation under this Chapter
\nshall be completed without unnecessary
\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (i)\tAs soon as it is completed, the officer in
\ncharge of the police station shall forward to a
\nMagistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
\noffence on a police report, a report in the form
\nprescribed by the State Government, stating <\/p>\n
\t(a) \tthe names of the parties;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tthe nature of the information;\n<\/p>\n
(c) \tthe names of the persons who appear to
\nbe acquainted with the circumstances of
\nthe case;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\twhether any offence appears to have been
\ncommitteed and, if so, by whom;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\twhether the accused has been arrested;\n<\/p>\n
(f)\twhether he has been released on his
\nbond and, if so, whether with out without
\nsureties;\n<\/p>\n
(g)\twhether he has been forwarded in
\ncustody under section 170.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe officer shall also communicate, in such
\nmanner as may be prescribed by the State
\nGovernment, the action taken by him, to the
\nperson, if any whom the information relating to
\nthe commission of the offence was first given.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhere a superior officer of police has been
\nappointed under section 158, the report shall, in
\nany case in which the State Government by general
\nor special order so directs, be submitted through
\nthat officer, and he may, pending the orders of the
\nMagistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police
\nstation to make further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhenever it appears from a report forwarded
\nunder this section that the accused has been
\nreleased on his bond, the Magistrate shall make
\nsuch order for the discharge of such bond or
\notherwise as he thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t When such report is in respect of a case to
\nwhich Section 170 applies, the police officer shall
\nforward to the Magistrate along with the report <\/p>\n
(a)\tall documents or relevant extracts thereof
\non which the prosecution proposes to rely
\nother than those already sent to the Magistrate
\nduring investigation;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe statements recorded under section
\n161 of all the persons whom the prosecution
\nproposes to examine as its witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tIf the police officer is of opinion that any part
\nof any such statement is not relevant to the subject
\nmatter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the
\naccused is not essential in the interests of justice
\nand is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall
\nindicate that part of the statement and append a
\nnote requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part
\nfrom the copies to be granted to the accused and
\nstating his reasons for making such request.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\t Where the police officer investigating the case
\nfinds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the
\naccused copies of all or any of the documents
\nreferred to in sub-section(5)”.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case undisputedly the challan was filed on
\n30.10.2004 and the trial court passed an order to the effect
\nthat the Ahlmad was to check and report. The Ahlmad
\nexamined the challan and noted as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Challan checked and found that negatives of
\nthe three photographs are not attached with.”\n<\/p>\n
The negatives were filed on 1.11.2004 and it was
\nindicated that “Challan checked, found correct”.\n<\/p>\n
In Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. v. State of Bihar (AIR<\/a>
\n1980 SC 506) dealing with the Section 11 of the Essential
\nCommodities Act, 1955 held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 11 of the Act precludes a Court
\nfrom taking cognizance of the offence
\npunishable under the Act except upon a report
\nin writing of the facts constituting such offence
\nmade by a person who is a public servant as
\ndefined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
\nThe question is, if such police officer
\ninvestigating into an offence which the Act has
\ndeclared as cognizable submits a report in
\nwriting under Section 173(2) disclosing an
\noffence under the Act and requesting for
\nproceeding further into the matter, would it
\nsatisfy the requirements of Section 11 for
\ntaking cognizance of the offence so disclosed?
\nUndoubtedly the police officer submitting the
\nreport would be a public servant within the
\nmeaning of S.21 and his report has to be in
\nwriting as required by Section 173(2).  It must
\ndisclose an offence of which cognizance can be
\ntaken by the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
Section 173(2) thus provides what the
\nreport in the prescribed form should contain.
\nIn this case the report did contain the name of
\nthe accused and the nature of the offence.  In
\nfact Section 170 provides that if upon an
\ninvestigation under Chapter XII it appears to
\nthe officer in charge of the police station that
\nthere is sufficient evidence or reasonable
\nground to proceed against the accused such
\nofficer shall forward the accused under custody
\nto a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
\nof the offence upon a police report, etc.  If the
\naccused is on bail that fact will be notified in
\nthe final report submitted under Section 173(2)
\nwould be complied with if the various details
\ntherein prescribed are included in the report.
\nThis report is an intimation to the Magistrate
\nthat upon investigation into a cognizable
\noffence the investigating officer has been able to
\nprocure sufficient evidence for the Court to
\ninquire into the offence and the necessary
\ninformation is being sent to the Court.  In fact,
\nthe report under Section 173(2) purports to be
\nan opinion of the investigating officer that as
\nfar as he is concerned he has been able to
\nprocure sufficient evidence for the trial of the
\naccused by the Court and when he states in the
\nreport not only the names of the accused, but
\nnames of the witnesses, the nature of the
\noffence and a request that the case be tried,
\nthere is compliance with Section 173(2).  The
\nreport as envisaged by Section 173(2) has to be
\naccompanied as required by sub-Section (5) by
\nall the documents and statements of the
\nwitnesses therein mentioned.  One cannot
\ndivorce the details which the report must
\ncontain as required by sub-Section (2) from its
\naccompaniments which are required to be
\nsubmitted under sub-section 5.  The whole of it
\nis submitted as a report to the Court. But even
\nif a narrow construction is adopted that the
\npolice report can only be what is prescribed in
\nSection 173(2) there would be sufficient
\ncompliance if what is required to be mentioned
\nby the statute has been set down in the report.
\nTo say that all the details of the offence must
\nbe set out in the  report under Section 173(2)
\nsubmitted by the police officer would be
\nexpecting him to do something more than what
\nthe Parliament has expected him to set out
\ntherein.  If the report with sufficient
\nparticularity and clarity specifies the
\ncontravention of the law which is the alleged
\noffence, it would be sufficient compliance with
\nSection 11.  The details which would be
\nnecessary to be proved to bring home the guilt
\nto the accused would emerged at a later stage,
\nwhen after notice to the accused a charge is
\nframed against him and further in the course of
\nthe trial.  They would all be matters of evidence
\nand Section 11 does not require the report to
\nbe or to contain the evidence in support of the
\ncharge, its function being merely to afford a
\nbasis for enabling the Magistrate to take
\ncognizance of the case (see Bhagwati Saran v.
\nState of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> 1961 (3) SCR 563).\n<\/p>\n
In this connection Mr. Nag referred to
\nRachpal Singh v. Rex. (AIR 1949 Oudh 66)
\nwherein after observing that the failure to
\nmention facts constituting the contravention of
\na rule means the absence in the report of the
\nvery first of the numerous steps in the course
\nof the trial of something which is vital and goes
\nto the very root of the case, a further contention
\non behalf of the State that the Court may at
\nthat stage look into the first information report
\nfiled in the case was negatived. This very
\nnarrow view of the matter does not commend to
\nus.  In fact, on the introduction of Section 173
\nin its form in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, the police officer investigating into a
\ncognizable offence is under a statutory
\nobligation to submit alongwith his report under
\nSection 173(2) documents purporting to furnish
\nevidence collected in the course of investigation
\nand the statements of the witnesses and the
\ncourt before proceeding into the case under a
\nduty to inquire whether the accused has been
\nfurnished with copies of all relevant documents
\nreceived under Section 173 by the Court, and
\nthe entire complexion of what should normally
\nbe styled as report submitted under Section
\n173(2) of the Code has undergone a change.
\nCourt can look at the report in prescribed form
\nalong with its accompaniments for taking
\ncognizance of the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
Stand of learned counsel for the appellant was that the
\nmere filing of the defective challan was really of no
\nconsequence. This aspect has been dealt with in Tara Singh’s
\nand Satya Narain’s cases (supra) in detail. Since all the
\nrelevant documents were before the Court before expiry of 90
\ndays period, grievance of the appellant is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
It would be appropriate if original photographs relied
\nupon are filed along with the report under Section 173(2) of
\nCr.P.C., and can be taken back with permission of the Court
\nto be produced as and when required.  Alternatively, the zerox
\ncopies can be filed along with a certificate that they can be
\ncompared with the originals, as and when so directed by the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
  A residuary plea was taken by Mr. D.K. Garg, learned
\ncounsel for the appellant that the bail was granted on
\n11.2.2005 and was cancelled on 10.11.2005.  It is stated that
\nthere is no allegation against that the appellant had misused
\nthe liberty of bail from the date of grant of bail upto the date of
\ncancellation or thereafter as the order of cancellation has been
\nstayed. At the stage of consideration of the bail application in
\nterms of Section 167(2) there was no consideration on the
\nmerits of the case.  Let the appellants surrender forthwith to
\ncustody.  It is, however, open to them to move for bail which
\nshall be considered in its own perspective.  We make it clear
\nthat we have not expressed any opinion on merits.  The appeal
\nis allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 757 of 2006 PETITIONER: Bhupinder Singh & Ors RESPONDENT: Jarnail Singh & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/07\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":4006,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\",\"name\":\"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2"},"wordCount":4006,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2","name":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T14:08:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-ors-vs-jarnail-singh-anr-on-13-july-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhupinder Singh & Ors vs Jarnail Singh & Anr on 13 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95720\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}