Criminal Misc. No. M-4858 of 2012. Petitioner counsel submitted that the petition was infructuous as no security was needed. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Petition dismissed as infructuous because petitioners were not in need of any security.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-4858 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2012.
Anuradha Devi and another
..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate for Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Brar, AAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3 – State.
None for respondents No.4 to 8.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition be dismissed as infructuous as the petitioners are not in need of any security at this stage.
Dismissed as infructuous.
03.07.2012 neetu
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal miscellaneous petition regarding bail security is infructuous.
Anuradha Devi and another
State of Punjab and others
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
