Allowed

Anirut v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012CRM-M/17572/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a special bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner in an FIR involving offences under IPC Sections 366, 376, 506 and 120-B. The Court held, noting no recovery and a cancellation report was prepared that the petitioner needed to be interrogated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted special bail; temporary order dated 06.06.2012 made absolute.

Anirut Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc.M-No.17572 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.M-No.17572 of 2012 Date of Decision:29.08.2012

Anirut

.....petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & anr.

¶9

.....respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶13

¶14

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):

¶15

The petitioner has filed the instant petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No.71 dated 10.04.2012, under Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 06.06.2012 and interim protection was granted to the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 06.06.2012, the petitioner has joined the investigation and has co-operated with the investigating agency. He further submits that since the investigating agency has prepared the cancellation report in the impugned FIR, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the present petition deserves to be accepted.

¶18

Learned State counsel fairly states that the investigating agency has prepared the cancellation report in the above noted FIR, which is likely to be presented to the learned court of competent jurisdiction,

¶19

¶20

Criminal Misc.M-No.17572 of 2012

¶21

shortly. In this view of the matter, he submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner will not be required. He also states that in compliance of the order dated 06.06.2012, the petitioner has joined the investigation and co-operated with the investigating agency.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. I say so for the reason that the cancellation report has already been prepared in the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above, order dated 06.06.2012 is hereby made absolute.

¶24

Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed.

¶25

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶26

29.08.2012 neenu

Anirut v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirut v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sarpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurmukh Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sharanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anirut Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sunita Rani Vs State of Haryana and Anr.