Dismissed

Charan Kamal Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Nov 2012CRM-M/20446/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences including theft and criminal conspiracy. The petition was dismissed as petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and recovery of stolen articles was pending.

What did the court decide?

Petition being an application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, order dated 31.8.2012 granting interim bail remains valid subject to conditions.

Charan Kamal Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-20446 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-20446 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.11.2012.

Charan Kamal Kaur

.......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the complainant. ****

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 24 dated 10.5.2012 under Section 380, 447, 448, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana.

¶16

Vide order dated 31.8.2012, petitioner was granted interim bail and was directed to join investigation.

¶17

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by Assistant Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh, has submitted that although the petitioner has joined investigation but was not co-operating with the investigating agency. Recovery of the articles was yet to be effected. Husband of the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender.

¶18

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant was the owner of the house in question and had shifted to Canada along with his family. Complainant had handed over the keys of the house to the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner was working as

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-20446 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶20

a Constable with Vigilance Department. In the absence of the complainant, the articles belonging to the complainant had been removed by the petitioner and her husband.

¶21

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Petitioner has not co-operated with the investigating agency. Recovery of stolen articles is yet to be effected. Husband of the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender.

¶22

No ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶25

November 01, 2012 Gurpreet

Charan Kamal Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Kamal Kaur v. State of Punjab

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

Rajbir Vs State of Haryana

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gora Singh @ Samual & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Mukesh Kumar @ Mona Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.