The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in an attack on a nursing home case. The court held that the serious allegations under the 2009 Haryana Act made it an unfit case for bail.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-12112 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.7.2011
Rakesh Makkar
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present : Mr. N.P.Jetley, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that on account of some death of a close relative of the petitioner in Jaspal Nursing Home, petitioner along with other persons attacked the Nursing Home and smashed window panes and threatened the doctor and staff with dire consequences. Considering the similar repeated attacks on the Nursing Homes and the doctors, the State Legislature had to enact the Haryana Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2009. The object is to check these incidents. The offence under the Act has been specifically made cognizable and nonbailable. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) 15.7.2011 Judge Meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the case is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail given the serious allegations under the Haryana Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damag
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Makkar
State of Haryana
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
