Allowed

Ravinder Singh Gorchia v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2012CRM-M/12883/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail, converting interim bail granted by a coordinate bench into absolute bail. It ruled that the complete deteriorated case status and existing interim bail justified granting absolute bail subject to persuasion under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail already granted to the petitioner on May 26, 2009, is made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Ravinder Singh Gorchia Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-12883 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-12883 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:18.10.2012

¶5

Ravinder Singh Gorchia .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr.Vikas Goel, Advocate, for Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Ravinder Singh Gorchia son of Gopi Ram, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, by means of FIR No.380 dated 13.12.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶17

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶18

CRM No.M-12883 of 2009

¶19

¶20

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surya Kant, J.) passed the following order on May 26, 2009:-

¶21

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier he was granted pre-arrest bail. However, he apprehends his arrest after the addition of the offence under Section 376 IPC.

¶22

Adjourned to 13.7.2009.

¶23

To be heard along with CWP No.7124 of 2009. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when required and shall also comply with the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶24

It is not a matter of dispute that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, (CWP No.7124 of 2009) now CRM No.M-6151 of 2011 stands admitted.

¶25

In this view of the matter, the interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated May 26, 2009, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

October 18, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Ravinder Singh Gorchia v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Gorchia v. State of Haryana

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

Gurdeep Singh Bajwa Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

S.S. Sohi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

M/S Makson Retailers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gurpreet Kaur

M/S Makson Retailers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ravjeet Kaur