Allowed

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CRM-M/10343/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court accepted the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that since the petitioner had joined the investigation and there were no allegations of absconding, the interim bail order granted earlier was made absolute subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's anticipatory bail application accepted; order of 17.4.2012 granting interim bail made absolute subject to Section 438(2) compliance.

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-10343 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2012.

¶3

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Manish Deswal, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶11

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.21 dated 23.03.2012 under Section 4B/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 279, 336, 420, 473, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

CRM No.M-10343 of 2012.

¶16

¶17

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶18

“CRM No.21321 of 2012.

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.M-10343 of 2012.

¶20

Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the ground that he is registered owner of the truck and that however, he had already handed over possession of the truck to co-accused, Manjinder Singh by executing power of attorney in his favour vide Annexure-P1. It is further contended that it is not possible that in the presence of so many police officials only petitioner would succeed in running away from the spot and other six persons were apprehended. It is further contended that moreover all the offences except offence under Section 420 IPC are bailable and that however, in this case no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana for 03.05.2012.

¶22

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 17.04.2012.

¶24

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instruction from ASI Ashwani Kumar that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶25

CRM No.M-10343 of 2012.

¶26

¶27

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶28

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka is accepted and order dated 17.4.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶29

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶30

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 03, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka v. State of Haryana

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

Shamma Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh @ Mipra Vs State of Haryana

Pawan & Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Harjatinder Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana