Allowed

Seema v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2012CRM-M/13216/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in a Section 306 IPC case. The court accepted delay in receiving certified copies from lower courts as sufficient and granted interim bail subject to standard conditions, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted interim bail subject to making himself available for interrogation and not inducing witnesses or leaving India without permission.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-13216 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-13216 of 2012 Date of decision: 25.7.2012

Seema

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.JP Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr.BS Saini, Sr.DAG, Haryana

¶12

Mr.BS Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.15 dated 15.1.2012, registered under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mohindergarh.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 21.2.2012 for a limited period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for extension of the said bail, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.4.2012. But the petitioner could not furnish the bail bonds as he did not receive the copy of the order till 17.4.2012.

¶18

CRM No.M-13216 of 2012 2

¶19

At the time of issuing notice of motion, this Court called for the comments from the concerned Court causing delay in supplying the certified copy of the order dated 6.4.2012. The report received from the concerned Court has rendered sufficient reasons for delay in issuing the certified copy of the order dated 6.4.2012.

¶20

The petitioner has joined the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Co-accused Sanjana mother of the petitioner has already been allowed bail.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on interim bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

1. that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

1. that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and;

¶24

1. that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶26

25.7.2012

¶27

gsv

Seema v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema 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

Harjeet Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab

Ravinder Kaur @ Pinki Vs Parkash Kaur and Anr.

Balbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Preeyush Lata Vs State of Punjab and Ors.