Quashed

Navdeep Gupta v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2009CRM-M/10760/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's bail and the dismissal of his revision petition. The petitioner was released on bail subject to heavy surety, fresh bail bonds, and an undertaking not to misuse the concession.

What did the court decide?

Orders Annexure P-1 and P-4 quashed. Petitioner released on bail subject to heavy surety, fresh bail bonds, and an undertaking not to misuse the concession.

Navdeep Gupta Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc No. M-10760 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.05.2009

Navdeep Gupta

....Petitioner

V/s

Union Territory, Chandigarh

¶7

....Respondent

¶8

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶11

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR in this case was registered under Sections 452, 427 323 and 506 IPC at police station Manimajra, Chandigarh on 12.03.2006. According to the counsel, petitioner was granted bail in this case by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh on 23.03.2006. However, an application was moved later by the witness namely Veer Pal Kaur on the ground that petitioner had misused the concession of bail as he had threatened her and her family members and even her counsel. On this ground, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh on 19.12.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. However, the same was dismissed on 09.04.2009, Annexure P-4 to the petition.

¶13

Mr. Sidhu has contended that petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2008. According to him, the case is triable by the Magistrate and detention of the petitioner in custody for such a long period is harsh as the

¶14

Crl. Misc No. M-10760 of 2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

trial is likely to take quite some time to conclude. This apart, petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that parameters for cancellation of bail are not made out and thus, the order cancelling the order be set-aside.

¶17

Learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh has though opposed the prayer made by the petitioner but concedes that the case is triable by the Magistrate and the petitioner has been detained for fairely long period in custody.

¶18

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexure P-1 and P-4 are hereby quashed. However, this will be subject to condition that the petitioner shall not misuse the concession of bail in any manner. The petitioner will be required to furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating officer who shall release the petitioner on bail subject to heavy surety and on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not misuse the concession of bail in future.

¶19

15.05.2009 Ajay

¶20

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

Navdeep Gupta v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Gupta v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Bajaj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Asra Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harbans Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sunny Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Wazir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Yogesh Bhati and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.