Petition for cancellation of bail granted to elderly respondent No.2. High Court noted absence of material showing non-cooperation and dismissal of bail petition as no strong ground exists for cancellation.
Petition for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 was dismissed.
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-17755 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-17755 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 13, 2012
Amanpreet Kaur
….Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate for the petitioner.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(ORAL)
By filing the present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail so granted to respondent No.2 in case FIR No.105 dated 28.03.2012 under Sections 406 and 498 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-31, Chandigarh by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends states that respondent No.2 was granted bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P-3). However, respondent No.2 is not cooperating with the investigating agency. No recovery has been effected from her. Learned counsel further refers certain facts regarding her stay in Chandigarh and states that her stay in China has been wrongly shown.
Heard.
Respondent No.2 is a mother-in-law of petitioner and is a lady of 70 years old. She has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial
Crl. Misc. No.M-17755 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
Court on 29.05.2012 (Annexure P-3). State has not filed any reply. There is no material on record to show that respondent No.2(mother-in-law) is not cooperating with the investigating agency. Bail once granted should not be ordinarily cancelled, certain strong circumstances should exist in order to take step of cancellation of bail. The learned counsel could not bring any fresh material on record to cancel the bail. Moreover, keeping in view the facts that respondent No.2 being the mother-in-law and is a lady of more than 70 years of age, no ground is made out for cancellation of bail.
Dismissed. 13.08.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) vcgarg JUDGE
Crl. Misc. No.M-17755 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
incarceration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail once granted can be cancelled against an elderly mother-in-law who lacks fresh evidence of non-cooperation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amanpreet Kaur
Union Territory, Chandigarh
Unnamed Respondent No.2
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
