Dismissed

Adarsh Vind Aggarwal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2010CRM-M/13802/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who filed for anticipatory bail, was dismissed. He had obtained an interim compromise regarding the impugned FIR but repeatedly sought adjournments to make the settlement payment. The court held that the petitioner wasted court time and dismissed the petition with costs.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Adarsh Vind Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13802 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-13802 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.08.2010

¶5

Dr. Adarsh Vind Aggarwal

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

Present:Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the complainant.

¶11

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

¶16

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.188 dated 20.03.2009 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda.

¶18

The following Order was passed on 06.11.2009 :-

¶19

“ The matter has been compromised between the parties. The petitioner has offered a sum of Rs.7 lacs for settlement. This offer is accepted by husband of the complainant, who is present in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a long date to arrange the money.

¶20

On his request, adjourned to 21.12.2009.”

¶21

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on the request of

¶22

learned counsel for the petitioner to 22.01.2010, 16.03.2010, 22.04.2010 and 01.07.2010 to enable the petitioner to make the payment as settled.

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-13802 of 2009 2

¶24

Finally, vide Order dated 01.07.2010, the matter was adjourned to 09.08.2010 to enable the petitioner to make the said payment along with costs. It was further made clear that in case, the said payment is not made by the next date of hearing, the petition shall be dismissed with heavy costs. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still not ready to make the payment and seeks more time. Moreover, costs have also not been paid till date.

¶25

The petitioner has wasted the time of the Court and sought many adjournments to make the said payment and has rather enjoyed the interim order for such a long time under the said pretext. Thus, not only has the investigation suffered in the present case but even the time of the Court has been wasted.

¶26

In view of the detailed Order passed on 01.07.2010, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

¶27

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶28

09.08.2010 gurpreet

Adarsh Vind Aggarwal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Vind Aggarwal v. State of Punjab

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

Smt Bhuri and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mandeep @ Sunny and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs Mukandi Ram and Ors.

L.a.Collector,Pseb,Patiala Vs Hy.Secy.,Red Cross Society,Gurdaspur

State of Haryana Vs Moti Lal & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Chuni Lal