Allowed

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CRM-M/11069/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Ram Chand Gupta disposed of an anticipatory bail petition. The petitioner had previously joined investigation and the State conceded no custodial interrogation was needed. The court made a prior interim bail order absolute four days later.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application accepted; interim bail order dated 24.04.2012 made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No.M-11069 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 08, 2012.

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate for for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

¶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.6 dated 11.01.2012 under Sections 324, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (subsequently on 23.01.2012 Section 326 IPC was added), registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar.

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

¶15

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 24.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶16

“Crl.M.No.22641 of 2012

¶17

CRM No.M-11069 of 2012

¶18

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-11069 of 2012

¶20

Contends that injury attributed to present petitioner is simple on ring finger of right hand and that similarly placed co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 8.5.2012.

¶22

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.”

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 24.04.2012.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶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 petitioner Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu is accepted and order dated 24.04.2012 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.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

CRM No.M-11069 of 2012

¶29

¶30

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 08, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kumar @ Sabhu 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

Chameli and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chaman Lal Vs State of Punjab

Vikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Haryana

Nazar Mohd. Vs State of Haryana