The Court heard a bail application filed by Saudagar Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding an IPC case in Ludhiana. The Court noted the impugned order treated the application as anticipatory bail despite the petitioner being in custody. The judgment is an oral order dismissing the bail plea.
Bail application dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-18841 of 2010
Date of Decision: 16.08.2010
Saudagar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No.10 dated 21.01.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana.
While dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana understood it to be anticipatory bail which is evident from para 1 of the petition. However, the petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2010.
Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate, Ludhiana.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
16.08.2010 gurpreet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be granted considering petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2010 and lower court erroneously treated it as anticipatory bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saudagar Singh
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
