The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The bench observed that the petitioners had joined the investigation pursuant to an order dated 12.11.2010.
The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed subject to conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-33263 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.12.2010
Roshan Lal and others
....Petitioners
V/s
State of U.T. Chandigarh
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.K. Khinder, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioners vide FIR No. 282 dated 19.10.2010 under Sections 323 (now converted into Section 325 IPC), 452, 506 & 34 IPC at Police Station Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to order dated 12.11.2010, the petitioners have joined the investigation.
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioners are granted the concession of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
December 21, 2010 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving sections 325 IPC, 452, 506 & 34 IPC should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Roshan Lal and others
State of U.T. Chandigarh
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
