Allowed

Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2010CRM-M/32780/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought confirmation of an earlier order granting interim anticipatory bail. The court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and posed no flight risk, confirming the interim bail order subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.11.2009 granting interim bail is confirmed subject to conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Narinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M 32780 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M 32780 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2010

Narinder Kaur

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.R.K.Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.A.S.Kakkar, Advocate for Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.64, dated 4.10.2009, registered under Sections 341/324/148/149/326 IPC, at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶17

A Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.11.2009, passed the following order:

¶18

“Crl.M.No.59230 of 2009

¶19

Allowed as prayed for.

¶20

Main Case

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the allegation against the petitioner is of exhortation (Lalkara).

¶22

Crl.M.No.M 32780 of 2009 (O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

Notice of motion for 7.1.2010.

¶25

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. She shall also join investigation and abide by all the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶26

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any investigation.

¶27

It has been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from Kuldeep Rai, ASI, that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police.

¶28

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶29

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 20.11.2009, granting interim bail to petitioner-Narinder Kaur, is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶32

23.3.2010 meenu

Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Mohan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajay Aggarwal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Inderjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan Vs State of Haryana