Dismissed

Thana Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2010CRM-M/17752/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition for extension of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The bail was originally granted conditioned on the petitioner rectifying an error in a sale deed description. Finding that the petitioner made no effort to contact respondents or rectify the deed after the court imposed a final deadline, the court withdrew the concession.

What did the court decide?

The concession of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners was withdrawn and the matter was dismissed.

Thana Ram and Anr. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CRM No. M 17752 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M 17752 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010

¶4

Thana Ram and another ........ Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another .......Respondent (s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. N D Achint, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

Ms Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State

¶11

Ms Vanita Sapra, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶15

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 120 dated 29.05.2010 under Sections 406, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Kherki Daula, District Gurgaon.

¶18

While issuing notice of motion and granting interim bail to the petitioners, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded that the petitioners undertake to rectify the mistake qua the description of land stated to have been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed

¶19

CRM No. M 17752 of 2010 2

¶20

and in case the said mistake is rectified, the possession of the complainant of the disputed land will not be affected. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 23.08.2010 to enable the parties to settle the dispute at their own level.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed on record a letter dated 07.09.2010 written by respondent No. 2, requesting the petitioners to confirm the time and venue or alternatively suggest another time so that the meeting can be arranged and things can be sorted out amicably in pursuance to the order of the Court dated 23.08.2010.

¶22

However, in spite of the said letter, no effort has been made by the petitioner to contact the respondents to settle the dispute or to rectify the description of the plot stated to have been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed.

¶23

Thus, the petitioners are in no mood to comply with the undertaking given in the Court at the time of notice of motion.

¶24

In view of the above, the concession of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners on the basis of the contention raised cannot be extended any further.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

September 22, 2010 mohan

¶27

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

Thana Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thana Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Satya Devi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Babu Ram Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Ram Gopal Vs State of Haryana

Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.