The court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail, holding that recovery of stolen batteries and a generator was still pending, making concession of bail inappropriate.
Concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not granted.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-2716 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.2.2011
Amar Jyoti
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr.S.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohammad, DAG, Punjab.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.69 dated 25.10.2010 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, registered at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District Roopnagar.
Affidavit on behalf of Punjab- respondent filed in the Court, today is taken on record. It is stated that wire has been recovered but the recovery of batteries and self of Generator is yet to be effected. On 11.2.2011, notice of motion was issued on the ground that recovery has been effected.
In these circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
( Ajay Tewari )
Judge
17.02.2011
sd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in proceedings for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC when recovery of articles is pending.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Jyoti
State of Punjab
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
