In an anticipatory bail petition, the Court noted that the State counsel submitted there was no apprehension of threat and the petitioners did not require security. Finding the petition infructuous on this basis, the matter was dismissed without further directions.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-11642 of 2012 Date of decision: 03.07.2012.
Sonia and another
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3 – State.
None for respondents No.4 to 6.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners as well as private respondents have made statements that there is no apprehension of threat and the petitioners are not in need of any security.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, no further direction is required to be issued and the present petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
03.07.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Whether the petition is infructuous given the statements of the parties.
Sonia and another
State of Punjab and others
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
