In a bail petition, the Court allowed the interim anticipatory bail order by making it absolute. The petitioner joined investigation and custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary. No opinion on merits was expressed.
Petitioner's bail petition allowed; interim bail order dated 29.6.2012 made absolute subject to conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18744 of 2012 Date of decision: 31.8.2012
Saroj Kakkar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of UT, Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.JS Toor, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
Heard.
On instructions from SI Ajinder Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the UT, Chandigarh informs that the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 29.6.2012, passed by this Court, has joined the investigation and he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 29.6.2012, vide which the petitioner was admitted to interim bail by this Court, is made absolute subject to the compliance of the conditions enshrined in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
31.8.2012 gsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim anticipatory bail granted previously should be made absolute.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saroj Kakkar
State of UT, Chandigarh
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
