A Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed interim anticipatory bail granted by order dated 17.08.2010, making it absolute as petitioners had surrendered and furnished security in counter-claim FIR cases.
The interim bail furnished by the petitioners is confirmed and made absolute; the petition stands disposed of.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-22685 of 2010 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-22685 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2010
Narinder Kumar and others
........Petitioners
Versus
Geeta Rani
.......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent.
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in complaint case No.260 dated 25.10.2007 titled as Geeta Rani Vs. Narinder Kumar etc., pending in the court of C.J.M. Amritsar, being a counter blast to the FIR, having been lodged by petitioners against the complainant, bearing No.144 dated 2.5.2007, under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.
At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 17.8.2010, the following order was passed by this Court :-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint has been filed as an counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioners
Crl. Misc. No. M-22685 of 2010 (O&M)
2
against the respondent.
Notice of motion for 21.9.2010.
In the meantime, the petitioners are
directed to surrender before the Magistrate and the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the above order petitioner have surrendered before the trial Court on 26.8.2010 and have furnished interim bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
Keeping in view the fact that the FIR has been lodged by the petitioners' side against the complainant under Section 306 IPC and the complainant has filed the complaint in question against the petitioners under Section 306 IPC, it would be just and expedient to confirm the interim bail granted by this Court. In the State case complainant is stated to be on bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim bail furnished by the petitioners in terms of the order dated 17.8.2010, passed by this Court, is made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE
September 21, 2010 Anand
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim bail granted earlier in notice of motion proceedings should be confirmed and made absolute given that the petitioners surrendered and furnished interim bail.
Narinder Kumar and others
Geeta Rani
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
