The High Court disposed of a petition seeking anticipatory bail. The court noted the petitioner was no longer needed for investigation and that an interim bail order dated 5.6.2012 was accordingly made absolute.
The interim bail order dated 5.6.2012 was made absolute.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17500 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-17500 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.08.2012
Satya Parkash Tyagi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Atul Arya, Advocate, for the complainant.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.173 dated 4.5.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, Faridabad (Haryana).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is neither a witness nor a purchaser nor the beneficiary of the alleged sale deeds. He further contends that the petitioner has been implicated being the relative of the subsequent purchaser, who has already been granted bail by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A Coordination Bench of this court, while issuing notice of motion on 5.6.2012 directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner would be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer in connection with abovesaid case FIR.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17500 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
On instructions from Assistant Sub Inspector Daya Nand, learned State counsel does not dispute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further informs that petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for interrogation.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by this Court is made absolute.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
August 16, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering he is no longer required for interrogation and is not a purchaser involved in the alleged crime.
Whether the interim bail order issued on 5.6.2012 should be made absolute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satya Parkash Tyagi
State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
