Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in Section 498-A case. Court dismissed petition as the petitioner failed to comply with prior orders directing him to join the investigation.
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
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
CRM No. M 17461 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2009
Kiran Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.TS Salana, DAG, Punjab
Mr.BS Walia, Advocate for the complainant
Harbans Lal, J.
This petition has been moved by Kiran Kumar petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.20 dated 14.3.2008 registered under Section 498-A of IPC (Section 406 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Kathgarh, District Nawanshahr.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Vide order dated 16.7.2008, notice was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for 16.10.2008 and the petitioner was admitted to interim bail by this Court with direction to join investigation and to comply with the conditions as enshrined in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.. On 16.10.2008 the matter was adjourned to 25.11.2008 and then to 15.1.2009. On 15.1.2009, it was informed by SI Vinod Kumar through the learned State counsel that the petitioner, in compliance with the order dated 16.7.2008, had not joined the investigation. To afford one more opportunity, he was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 21.1.2009 at 10 AM for the purpose of
CRM No. M 17461 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
investigation. Today again SI Vinod Kumar, through the learned State counsel informs that the petitioner, in compliance with the order dated 16.7.2008, had not joined investigation. It is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has no regard for orders of this Court. That being so, he does not deserve any relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed.
February 3, 2009 gsv
(Harbans Lal) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. having failed to comply with court orders to join investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kiran Kumar
State of Punjab
Harbans Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
