Allowed

Ram Sarup and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2010CRM-M/12046/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge accepted a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner had already joined the investigation pursuant to a prior interim order. Finding no material indicating likelihood of absconding, the court made the interim bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application accepted; interim bail order dated 27.04.2010 made absolute subject to Section 438(2) conditions.

Ram Sarup and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 12046 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2010.

¶3

Ram Sarup and others.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...... RESPONDENT(s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶11

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.50 dated 05.04.2010, under Sections 379/506 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.

¶15

A coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.04.2010 passed the following order:-

¶16

“CRM No.21635 of 2010

¶17

Allowed as prayed for.

¶18

¶19

CRM No.M-12046 of 2010

¶20

CRM No.M 12046 of 2010

¶21

Notice of motion for 15.7.2010.

¶22

Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioners is stayed with a direction to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioners will be admitted to interim bail by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners will abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.”

¶23

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 27.04.2010.

¶24

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶25

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶26

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Ram Sarup, Ram Singh, Gian Chand and Sunder Lal, is accepted and order dated 27.04.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶29

July 15, 2010. 'om'

Ram Sarup and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sarup and Ors. 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

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Soni@ Sohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Dilbagh @ Darbara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rai Singh Vs Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.