The High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. The court found the accusation against the bail-judge reasonable as investigation of a subsequent FIR cleared the respondent. The petition was rejected as lacking merit.
Petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail is 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.
[ 1 ]
CRM-M-26005-2011
:::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-26005-2011 Date of decision:02.02.2012 Babli ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”] for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2011 in a case registered vide FIR No.903 dated 07.10.2010, under Sections 148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”] at Police Station City, Karnal, District Karnal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2, while on bail, has pressurized and threatened the complainant and her family either to compromise the matter or face the consequences. In this regard, the petitioner had registered FIR No.665 dated 01.08.2011, under Sections 452/506 IPC at P.S. City, Karnal. It is, thus, submitted that the bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court deserves to be cancelled.
Notice was issued in this petition pursuant to which both the respondents have filed their respective replies. Respondent No.1 has
[ 2 ]
CRM-M-26005-2011
:::::::::
averred in its reply that after registration of the FIR No.665 dated 01.08.2011, the investigation was carried out in which statement of the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded who had categorically denied the participation of respondent No.2 in the alleged occurrence. Hence, after completion of investigation, the challan had been produced only against Raj wife of Gaya Parshad and Manjit wife of Rakesh as respondent No.2 has been found to be innocent. The reply of respondent No.2 is also on the same lines.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that the present petition is without any substance as the allegation against respondent No.2 has been found to be false even in the investigation of the FIR No.665 registered by the petitioner on 01.08.2011.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
February 02, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled due to allegations of threatening the complainant during investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babli
State of Haryana
Raj wife of Gaya Parshad
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
