Allowed

Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2009CRM-M/4697/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed. The petitioner, facing trial in a private complaint for assault, sought bail after missing court dates due to hospitalization. The court rejected fears of tampering with evidence but granted bail attached to bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim order dated 18.2.2009 confirmed subject to conditions of appearance and no tampering with evidence.

Tilak Raj Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Cr.Misc. NO. M 4697 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr.Misc. NO. M 4697 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 21.5.2009

Tilak Raj

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......RESPONDENTS

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate Mr. PS Sidhu,Addl.A.G.Pb Mr. ADS Ghuman, Advocvate.

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner is facing trial pursuant to a private complaint filed by Yashapal alleging that the petitioner along with others had assaulted his wife and insulted her. There are allegations of outraging the modesty of complainant's wife. On account of petitioner being absent in November,2008 , non bailable warrants had been issued, raising an apprehension of his arrest . The petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial court pursuant to the interim order passed by this court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained the reasons that on account of the fact that the petitioner had to undergo an operation in November,2008 for disc problem and on account of his hospitalization he was not able to appear before the trial court. Reliance has been placed on medical certificates dated 19.11.2008 and 4.12.2008 (Annexures P-3,P-4 and P-5, respectively).

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant has put in appearance to oppose the petition contending that the conduct of the petitioner is such, that he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail and that he is

¶15

Cr.Misc. NO. M 4697 of 2009

¶16

¶17

capable of misusing his position.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The complainant admittedly is a retired Assistant Commandant of B.S.F. The complainant has levelled certain allegations against the petitioner, which are yet to be established before the trial court. The petitioner has explained sufficient reasons for his absence.

¶19

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence and will be able to threaten the complainant and the victim in case he is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I do not find any sufficient reason to agree with the said contention. On account of the grievance of the complainant, he seems to be over zealous to see the petitioner behind the bars during the pendency of the private complaint.

¶20

This petition is allowed and interim order dated 18.2.2009 is hereby confirmed subject to the condition that the petitioner will continue to appear before the trial Court and will not absent himself without any sufficient cause. He will not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶21

( M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

¶22

May 21 ,2009 TSM

Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Maha Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Memuna Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jasbir Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Anr.

Ram Karan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.