The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that since the age of the alleged victim (14 years) was not shown to be false at this stage, the case did not warrant extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
Petition for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
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.M.No.M-23674 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-23674 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010
Umar
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.196, dated 2.6.2010, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he enticed away a minor girl, aged 14 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents.
It has been contended that petitioner performed marriage with the girl with her consent and that they had also filed a petition for protection of their life and liberty before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, to take an appropriate action on the said application.
However, at this stage there is nothing to show that allegation against the petitioner, that daughter of the complainant is 14 years of age, is false.
Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-23674 of 2010 (O&M)
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerUmar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
18.8.2010 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner facing allegations of abducting a 14-year-old girl.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Umar
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
