The High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 376(2)(G) IPC. The court noted the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender and stated no ground for the grant of bail was made out.
Anticipatory bail petition 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-27954 OF 2012(O&M) DECIDED ON : 23.11.2012
Dinesh
...Petitioner
versus
U.T., Chandigarh
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. R. K. Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, Standing counsel for U.T., Chd.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in Section
376 (2) (G) of the IPC. Moreover, he has been declared
proclaimed offender.
So, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made
out.
Dismissed.
NOVEMBER 23, 2012 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
whether the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Section 376(2)(G) IPC deserves the same and why or why not
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh
U.T., Chandigarh
K. C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
