Allowed

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC31 Jan 2011CRM-M/2592/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, a proclaimed offender residing in Canada, sought bail. The petitioner alleged the FIR was registered in violation of the Punjab Apartment Properties Regulation Act and that proceedings against co-accused were stayed. The court allowed bail contingent on surrender within one month and filing an application, provided bail

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before trial Court within one month and file an application for regular bail; to be released on furnishing bail bonds.

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-2592 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-2592 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.01.2011

Kuldeep Kaur

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶11

Present:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶16

¶17

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶18

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 04.01.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in case FIR No.147 dated 12.08.2007 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana for offence under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment Properties Regulation Act, 1995.

¶19

It is stated that the FIR has been registered in violation of provisions of Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment Properties Regulation Act, 1995, for which, the criminal action can be taken against the developers of unauthorized colonies and other co-accused. It is further stated that the proceedings against the respondent have since been quashed and the proceedings against all other co-accused have been

¶20

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-2592 of 2011

¶22

stayed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-21406 of 2009 vide P-11. It is also contended that the petitioner is residing in Canada and owns Canadian Passport since 10.05.2007. While issuing warrants against the petitioner, the trial Court did not record its satisfaction that the petitioner could not be served and that she is concealing her presence. It is further stated that the petitioner is now ready to return to India and face trial.

¶23

Taking into account the above facts and circumstances, as well as, the allegations in the FIR, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within one month from today and files an application for regular bail, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction.

¶24

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶25

31.01.2011 gurpreet

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Suresh Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Multan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parkash Kashyap Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satish Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Anr.