Allowed

Manoj Dubey v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2010CRM-M/16767/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Chandigarh disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court made an interim bail order absolute, noting the petitioner had joined investigation and no risk of absconding was established.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 04.6.2010 granting bail subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions was made absolute and the petition disposed of.

Manoj Dubey Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No. M- 16767 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No. M- 16767 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.7.2010

Manoj Dubey

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. R.K. Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.M. Anand, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad.

¶15

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

¶16

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion 04.6.2010, passed the following order:-

¶17

“ Relies on the order passed in respect of coaccused, who has been granted the concession of regular bail. Some of the co-accused have been granted concession of anticipatory bail. Contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR.

¶18

Notice of motion for 20.7.2010.

¶19

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the

¶20

Criminal Misc.No. M- 16767 of 2010

¶21

-2-

¶22

petitioner, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He will join the investigation as and when required.”

¶23

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation in pursuance of the said order.

¶24

It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondentState that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶25

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

¶26

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 04.6.2010, granting interim bail to the petitioner Manoj Dubey, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

July 20, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE

Manoj Dubey v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Dubey 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

Ridamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Panjab University, Chd. and Ors.

Rai Singh Vs Chief Director of Vigilance Bureau and Ors.

Dilbagh @ Darbara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Randhir Singh @ Bau and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jasmero Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana