Vikas Kumar Alias Vikki and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

¶1

CRM.M-27499 of 2009

¶2

1

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .

¶4

Decided on 09.10.2009.

¶5

Vikas Kumar alias Vikki and another -- Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Haryana --Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶9

Present: Mr.Ajit Atri,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana.

¶10

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral)

¶11

On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is converted into a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.').

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 1.9.2009, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by Sh.Shekhar Dhawan, learned Addl.Sessions Judge, on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety of the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of learned Trial/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra in case of their surrender before learned trial/Duty Magistrate, within a period of one week from today (i.e.1.9.2009), failing which, their bail application was to be dismissed.

¶13

2

¶14

CRM.M-27499 of 2009

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 3.9.2009, his Clerk had applied for certified copy in which name of the Court was wrongly mentioned as the Court of Sh.L.N.Jindal, Addl.Civil Judge, Kurukshetra, instead of the Court of Sh. Shekhar Dhawan, Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Therefore, the said application was returned in original by Copying Branch on 11.9.2009 as mentioned in para 3 of the petition.

¶16

Since the order dated 1.9.2009,was specific that the petitioners had to apply for bail within a week from the date of the order i.e. dated 1.9.2009, the said period had expired, therefore, the petitioner moved a Criminal Miscellaneous on 14.9.2009 in the Court of Mr. Shekhar Dhawan, learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, seeking extension of time to surrender before the trial/Duty Magistrate explaining the reasons for not applying for bail in time before the trial Court. The said application has been rejected by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide his order dated 22.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the petitioner could not assign any reason not to comply with the order of the Court, therefore, the time cannot be extended.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the reason assigned by the petitioners in the application dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P2), which is apparent from the document Annexure P-1 is a bonafide one. Therefore, the order dated 22.9.2009 is hereby set aside. Now the petitioners are given liberty to appear/surrender before the trial/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On their entering appearance, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-

¶18

3

¶19

CRM.M-27499 of 2009

¶20

each with one surety of the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of learned Trial/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, failing which their bail application shall stand dismissed.

¶21

With these observations , t he petition stands disposed of.

¶22

09.10.2009 RR

¶23

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Vikas Kumar Alias Vikki and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Alias Vikki and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karamjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Gulshan and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Subhash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.