Allowed

Pappu @ Kunja and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2011CRM-M/16676/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed pre-arrest bail in a private complaint regarding money dealings and a 2005 incident. Court ordered appearance before trial court and surrender of bail bonds with conditions regarding tampering and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order of pre-arrest bail granted; appearance before trial court required; bail bonds for Rs. 50,000 each with one surety required.

Pappu @ Kunja and Another Vs State of Haryana and… — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Cr.Misc. M 16676 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Cr.Misc. M 16676 of 2011 Date of decision:23.9.2011

¶5

Pappu @ Kunja & another

¶6

petitioner

¶7

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

respondent

¶10

Present:Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate.

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI, J.

¶12

The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the complainant is a farmer, who has got money dealings with the petitioners. The petitioners owed a huge amount to the complainant but when the complainant approached the petitioners in the year 2005, the complainant was fired at by petitioner No.1.

¶13

Counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition for prearrest bail contending that the petitioners have been continuously threatening the complainant from the very beginning and that they being influential persons, will be able to tamper with evidence.

¶14

I have heard counsel for the parties and I am of the view that on the similar circumstances the complainant appears to have earlier approached the court. The matter was inquired by the police. A dual version has already cropped up regarding the incident.

¶15

Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is

¶16

Cr.Misc. M 16676 of 2011

¶17

¶18

sufficient to observe that the occurrence is of the year 2005 and the petitioners have already appeared before the trial court. In view of the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the petitioners can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶19

The petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners will appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing fixed before it and in case of petitioners doing so, they will be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety of the like amount subject to the condition that they will continue to appear before the summoning court/ trial court. They will not tamper with evidence or threaten the complainant and will not absent themselves without any sufficient cause.

¶20

September 23 , 2011 TSM

¶21

(M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

Pappu @ Kunja and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu @ Kunja and Another v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Randhir Singh Alias Dheera Vs State of Punjab

Gurvinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sanah @ Meenu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Nek Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Harjeet Singh @ Jeeta Vs State of Punjab