The High Court set aside an impugned order cancelling the petitioner's bail and forfeiting bonds. The court observed that the petitioner had furnished a necessary undertaking to appear regularly, which the State did not dispute.
The impugned order dated 23.5.2006 setting aside the bail and cancelling the bond was set aside; the petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. 64796-M of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 18.12.2006
Rajinder Singh
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.
Petitioner Rajinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the trial court, whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and bail bond and surety bond of the petitioner have been cancelled and forfeited to the State in FIR No. 354 dated 19.10.1998 registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the order dated October 19, 2006, passed by this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the trial court and has furnished an undertaking that he will regularly appear before the court. This fact has not been disputed by the State Counsel.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 is set aside and this petition is, accordingly, allowed.
December 18, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's bail and forfeiting bonds should be set aside given that the petitioner had complied with a previous undertaking.
Whether the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to restore bail has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Singh
State of Punjab
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
