High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for two accused. The court held the case involved serious allegations and was devoid of merit, refusing extraordinary relief without expressing opinion on case merits.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17565 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17565 of 2010 Date of decision:- 06.7.2010
Balwinder Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant.
RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)
The present petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case F IR No. 90 dated 02.6.2010, under Sections 452,380,506,427,34 IPC, registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Brief allegations are that a civil suit was pending between complainant and Gurdeep Singh etc. regarding premise of complainant and an injunction was granted in favour of the complainant and the respondents in the civil suit were restrained from dispossessing her forcibly. Further allegations are that complainant was in possession of the said property as tenant under Gurdeep Singh and that later on present petitioner purchased the said premises from the previous owner and despite injunction order, on 10.4.2010 at about 7 PM applicant-accused alongwith some other persons armed with weapons entered the said premises forcibly and had taken forcible possession and had
Criminal Misc.No. M- 17565 of 2010
-2-
also removed household goods belonging to complainant i.e. Bed, fridge, T.V. , two cylinders, drum, 4 fans, two rings, ear ring, karra (arm ring), chair and table and Rs.20,000/- and also attempted to cause injuries to the complainant.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case has been registered due to political pressure just to spoil the carrier of present petitioners and that no such occurrence had taken place.
Bail application is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that stolen articles are yet to be recovered.
In view of allegations against the petitioners-accused, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Balwinder Singh and Kamaljit Singh.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused Balwinder Singh and Kamaljit Singh is dismissed, being devoid of any merits.
July 06, 2010 vj
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in a case involving forcible dispossession and theft.
Whether the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. merits allowing the plea.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balwinder Singh
Kamaljit Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
