Allowed

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CRM-M/33326/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court converted an interim anticipatory bail order into a permanent one. Since the petitioner joined the investigation and no risks of absconding or witness tampering were found, the interim order dated 15.11.2011 was made absolute subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail order dated 15.11.2011 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 33326 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2012.

Ram Kumar.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.439 dated 23.07.2011, under Sections 379/411/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at police station Assandh, District Karnal.

¶14

¶15

CRM No.M-33326 of 2011

¶16

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

¶17

Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.11.2011 passed the following order:-

¶18

“The petitioner is directed to join the investigation on 23.11.2011 at 10.00 a.m. in the concerned Police Station. Adjourned to 12.12.2011.

¶19

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

¶20

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 15.11.2011.

¶21

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶22

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

¶23

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of

¶24

¶25

CRM No.M-33326 of 2011

¶26

Ram Kumar is accepted and order dated 15.11.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

January 19, 2012. ‘om’

¶29

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar 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

Gurdial Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rupinder Singh @ Pinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vidur Shroff and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Virender Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Muddin Vs State of Haryana

Rajwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & or.