Allowed

Harjatinder Sharma v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CRM-M/10370/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court made earlier interim bail order absolute, noting the petitioner had joined the investigation and no risk of absconding or witness intimidation was alleged.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; earlier interim bail order made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Harjatinder Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-10370 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10370 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2012.

Harjatinder Sharma.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of U.T., Chandigarh.

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. P.P.S.Doabia Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Preetpal Singh Guliani, APP, U.T.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 81 dated 16.03.2012, under Section 420 IPC, registered at police station Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

¶16

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, Chandigarh dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

CRM No.M-10370 of 2012

¶18

¶19

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 18.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶20

“Crl.M.No.21355 of 2012

¶21

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶22

Crl.M.No.M-10370 of 2012

¶23

Contends that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that complainant was not ready to make payment of remaining amount and to get the sale deed executed in his favour, whereas petitioner was in dire need of money and hence he was having no option but to execute the sale deed in favour of third person and that it was complainant, who was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶24

Notice of motion for 3.5.2012.

¶25

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

¶26

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 18.04.2012.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

CRM No.M-10370 of 2012

¶30

¶31

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 Harjatinder Sharma is accepted and order dated 18.04.2012 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.

¶32

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

May 3, 2012. ‘om’

¶34

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Harjatinder Sharma v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjatinder Sharma v. Ut of Chandigarh

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

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka Vs State of Haryana

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana