Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in an IPC case. Learned counsel stated the petitioner joined the investigation. Court made the interim order absolute and allowed the petition.
Order dated 20.8.2010 made absolute; petition allowed.
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. M. No.23797-M of 2010 Date of Decision:13.10.2010
Shaukat
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.72 dated 13.5.2010 registered under Sections 363/366 of IPC at Police Station Kalka District Panchkula.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on instructions from ASI Balwan Singh states that the petitioner has since joined the investigation.
In view of the facts as noticed vide order dated 20.8.2010 and the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, order dated 20.8.2010 is made absolute and the petition is allowed as such.
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
13.10.2010 rajeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail grant shall be made absolute since the petitioner has joined the investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaukat
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
