Allowed

Shamma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CRM-M/10505/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court made an interim order granting interim bail absolute. The court noted the petitioner had joined the investigation and found no risk of absconding or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 17.04.2012 making bail interim was made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Shamma Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-10505 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10505 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 2, 2012.

Shamma.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶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.39 dated 05.03.2012, under Sections 420/506/406 IPC, registered at police station C-Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

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

¶17

CRM No.M-10505 of 2012

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

“Contends that petitioner never promised to marry the complainant and that both were divorcees and rather at the instance of complainant there was some talk of marriage and however, petitioner refuse to marry him. It is further contended that no amount was received by her from the complainant hence, there is no question of any act of cheating being committed by the petitioner.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 02.05.2012.

¶22

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case of her arrest, she shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the 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 she 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 that petitioner has joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

CRM No.M-10505 of 2012

¶28

¶29

Shamma is accepted and order dated 17.04.2012 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.

¶30

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶32

May 2, 2012. ‘om’

Shamma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamma v. State of Punjab

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

Sandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurdial Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab

Varinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh @ Mipra Vs State of Haryana

Pawan & Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Nafe Singh Vs State of Haryana