Allowed

Raj Rani v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2012CRM-M/13961/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under the NDPS Act. The court accepted the petitioner's explanation for missing a hearing date, noting her timely application for anticipatory bail, and made an interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and the order dated 11.5.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail is made absolute.

Raj Rani Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-13961 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

**Crl. Misc. No. M-13961 of 2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 *****

¶5

Smt. Raj Rani @ Sunita Devi

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab

.. Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. B.C. Bitta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

**Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG Punjab. *****

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J(ORAL).

¶14

Smt. Raj Rani @ Sunita Devi , the petitioner seeks prearrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 135 dated 19.7.2012 at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under sections 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in which the petitioner was on bail, was fixed for hearing for 5.4.2012. According to him, on account of confusion of date, she went to the court on 4.4.2012 to know about the date of hearing and in the court, she met the Naib Court who told her to come after 2/3 days. When she went to the court after 2/3 days, she came to know that case had been fixed on 5.4.2012, on which date her absence was marked and

¶16

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-13961 of 2012

¶18

warrants of arrest had been issued against her.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the directions issued by this court vide order dated 11.5.2012, the petitioner has appeared before the court concerned at Ludhiana and has been admitted to interim bail.

¶20

Learned State counsel admits that the petitioner has appeared before the court and has been admitted to interim bail.

¶21

Keeping in view the explanation given by the petitioner for her non-appearance on 5.4.2012 and the fact that she applied for anticipatory bail very soon, I find her to be entitled to be on bail during the trial. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 11.5.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶22

August 17,2012 Jiten

¶23

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

Raj Rani v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani 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

Harji Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar @ Balli Vs State of Punjab

Reena Vs State of Haryana

Gurmukh Singh Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Chamkaur Singh & Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.