Allowed

Varun Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2012CRM-M/11962/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Chandigarh disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a minor in a cross-version case involving violence and offences against modesty. Finding that the petitioner had joined investigation and faced no risk of absconding, the court made an earlier interim bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is accepted and the interim order grant on 26.04.2012 is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Varun Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-11962 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11962 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2012.

Varun Kumar.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. R.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr.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 cross-version case vide Rapat no. 40 dated 24.02.2012, under Sections 323/326/34 IPC, Annexure P1, registered in FIR no.42 dated 20.02.2012, under Sections 451/354 IPC, registered at police station City, Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur.

¶16

CRM No.M-11962 of 2012

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶20

“Crl.M.No.24345 of 2012

¶21

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-11962 of 2012

¶22

Contends that petitioner, who is a minor, has been falsely implicated in the cross version got recorded by complainant after four days of the FIR, being registered by mother of present petitioner. It is further contended that as per version of mother of present petitioner, complainant entered the house of petitioner and tried to outrage the modesty of the mother of petitioner as he earlier used to stay as tenant in the house of petitioner and later on he was turned out. It is further submitted that even as per version, he has not been attributed injury which falls under Section 326 IPC and that father of petitioner, who has been attributed with such injury has already been arrested in this case and mother has been granted anticipatory bail.

¶23

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 10.5.2012.

¶24

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.”

¶25

CRM No.M-11962 of 2012

¶26

¶27

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 26.04.2012.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 Varun Kumar is accepted and order dated 26.04.2012 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.

¶31

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶33

May 10, 2012. ‘om’

Varun Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Kumar 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

Surjit Singh @ Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Bashir Vs State of Haryana

Navdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjit Singh @ Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Moti Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab