Dismissed
Sunny Kumar v. State of Punjab
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/12233/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
M-12233 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
M-12233 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
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.
1
Crl. Misc No. M-12233 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M-12233 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.05.2009
Sunny Kumar
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S. Gharun, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for complainant.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections365/34 IPC at Police Station Phase-6, Mohali vide FIR No. 22 dated 01.02.2009.
The FIR was lodged by Jarnail Singh alleging that his daughter and grand-son have been kidnaped by the petitioner and they are not traceable since 03.01.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime.
Learned counsel for the State, has however, vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that daughter of complainant was working in Money Mantra Company which is being run by the petitioner. According to the counsel,
2
Crl. Misc No. M-12233 of 2009
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It is evident that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and complainant has alleged that his daughter and grand son have been kidnaped by the petitioner. It is also clear that daughter and grand son have not been traced till now.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. On the other hand, custodial interrogation may be necessary for unravelling the manner in which the crime has been committed.
The petition is thus, dismissed.
15.05.2009 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of kidnapping under Sections 365/34 IPC given that the victims have not been traced.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the interest of justice considering the gravity of the offence and the fate of the victims.
Sunny Kumar
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court