The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dinesh Kumar, an accused in a case involving criminal trespass, cheating, and possession of arms, allowing release upon arrest subject to standard conditions.
Anticipatory bail granted. Petitioner to join investigation, not threaten witnesses, and not leave the country without court permission.
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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35528 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2011
Dinesh Kumar
---Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana.
Gurdev Singh, J.
Heard.
The petitioner-accused, Dinesh Kumar @ Dinney son of Dharam Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 359 dated 26.6.2011 registered under Sections 447, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and Section Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Police Station Jhajjar.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not named as one of the accused in the FIR by the complainant, has not been denied by the State Counsel. However, he come up with the plea that he was named as such by Kailash son of Chander Bhan, whose statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 35528 of 2011(O&M) -2-
Accordingly to the counsel for the petitioner, one of the accused; namely, Sonpal @ Sonu, who was specifically named in the FIR, has already been allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M- 21523 of 2011, vide order dated 28.7.2011. The present petitioner stands at a better footing. He was named as an accused subsequently. It is not a case where he was stranger to the complainant or that his name was not known to him, as in the first part of the FIR itself, he specifically stated that the plot in dispute was transferred in the name of the present petitioner and others, then what was the hitch for the complainant to name this petitioner specifically as an accused.
In all these circumstances, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in the FIR mentioned above, he is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:-
(i)He shall Join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
(ii)He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and
(iii)He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.
(GURDEV SINGH)
JUDGE
PARAMJIT
December 13, 2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused named in the FIR under Sections 447, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Kumar
State of Haryana
GURDEV SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
