Allowed

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2010CRM-M/16750/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court made interim anticipatory bail orders absolute in three connected petitions filed by workers discharged over disputes involving theft and non-wage payments, after confirming they joined investigation and settled.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 10.6.2010 granting interim anticipatory bail were made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-16750 of 2010	(O&M	) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT	OF CHAN	PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH.
1.		Crl.M.No.M-16750 of 2010 (O&M)
Anil Kumar Tiwari	v.	.....Petitioner
State of Punjab		.....Respondent
2.		Crl.M.No.M-16751 of 2010 (O&M)
Sunil Tiwari and another		.....Petitioners
State of Punjab	v.	.....Respondent
3.		Crl.M.No.M-17014 of 2010 (O&M)
Santosh Kumar Tiwari and a State of Punjab	nother v.	.....Petitioners ......Respondent

¶2

Date of Decision: August 12, 2010

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶4

Present: Mr.S.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶5

Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

¶6

Mr.K.S.Reiki, Advocate and Mr.V.K.Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.

¶7

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶8

This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.16750, 16751 and 17014 of 2010, filed by petitionersAnil Kumar Tiwari, Sunil Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Satish Tiwari, respectively, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.17, dated 12.2.2010, under Section 381/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar.

¶9

Crl.M.No.M-16750 of 2010 (O&M)

¶10

-2-

¶11

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

¶12

A coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.M.No.M-16750 of 2010, passed the following order on 10.6.2010:

¶13

“ State counsel, on instructions, points out that the averment made in the petition can only be ascertained in case the petitioner appear and join investigation. The allegation of theft or if it is a counter-blast to payment of non-wages can accordingly be ascertained only during the course of investigation.

¶14

Adjourned to 19.7.2010. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.6.2010 at 10.00 a.m. In case, he does so, his arrest shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”

¶15

On the same day, i.e., 10.6.2010, the same Bench passed the following separate order in Crl.M.Nos.M-16751 and 17014 of 2010:

¶16

“ State counsel, on instructions, points out that the averment made in the petition can only be ascertained in case the petitioners appear and join investigation. The allegation of theft or if it is a counter-blast to payment of non-wages can accordingly be ascertained only during the course of investigation.

¶17

Adjourned to 19.7.2010. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.6.2010 at 10.00 a.m. In case, they do so, their arrest shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”

¶18

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners have already joined the investigation.

¶19

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

¶20

It has also been stated by both the learned counsel for the complainant that dispute was between employers and the workers and the same has been amicably settled.

¶21

-3-

¶22

Crl.M.No.M-16750 of 2010 (O&M)

¶23

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.

¶24

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, orders dated 10.6.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Anil Kumar Tiwari, Sunil Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Satish Tiwari, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

All the present petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶26

12.8.2010

¶27

meenu

¶28

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Haryana State Vs Budh Singh etc.

State of Haryana Vs Surinder Pal Taneja

Joginder Singh & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Jagmohan Singh and Ors.

Chetu Vs State of Punjab