Allowed

Sheela and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2012CRM-M/199/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted two anticipatory bail applications filed by Sheela, Suman, Maman, and Shri Pal under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making interim bail orders absolute as the petitioners had joined investigation and no fresh grounds existed to delay relief. Both petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail applications accepted and interim orders made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 199 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2012. Sheela and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 1164 of 2012(O&M). Maman and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶3

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶4

Present: Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶5

¶6

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶7

This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed

¶8

for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal

¶9

¶10

CRM No.M-199 of 2012

¶11

Procedure in FIR no.435 dated 24.11.2011, under Sections 148/149/323/506/ 427/452 IPC, registered at police station Sampla, District Rohtak.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Rohtak dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶13

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.Misc. No.M199 of 2012 on 04.01.2012 passed the following order:-

¶14

“Crl.M.No.382 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-199 of 2012

¶17

Contends that all the family members of the petitioners have been implicated in this case. Further contends that coaccused Dharmender, Deepak, Rohtash and Kuldeep have already been arrested in this case. Further contends that no injury has been attributed to the present petitioners, who are ladies.

¶18

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 25.1.2012.

¶19

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶20

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.Misc. No.M-

¶21

1164 of 2012 on 16.01.2012 passed the following order:-

¶22

“Crl.M.No.2359 of 2012

¶23

¶24

CRM No.M-199 of 2012

¶25

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶26

Crl.M.No.M-1164 of 2012

¶27

Contends that is a case of simple injury. Further contends that however no role whatsoever has been attributed to present petitioners-accused. It is also contended that co-accused Sheela and Suman, to whom same role has been attributed of catching hold the injured have already been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 4.1.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-199 of 2012 and the same is pending for 25.1.2012. Further contends that main accused have already been arrested.

¶28

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 25.1.2012

¶29

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-199 of 2012”

¶31

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 04.01.2012 and 16.01.2012.

¶32

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶33

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶34

¶35

CRM No.M-199 of 2012

¶36

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Sheela, Suman, Maman and Shri Pal are accepted and orders dated 04.01.2012 and 16.01.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶37

Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶38

January 25, 2012. ‘om’

¶39

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Sheela and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela and Anr. v. State of Haryana

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

Ranjit Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab

Parminder Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Gurmukh Singh @ Gukhi Vs State of Punjab

Maman and Another Vs State of Haryana

Hardial Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Singh @ Sunny Vs State of Punjab