Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Court noted he had already been released on bail post appearance. Petition allowed; earlier order made absolute.
Petition allowed; the order dated 04.04.2012 made absolute.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-9641 of 2012 Date of Decision: 08.05.2012
Jethu Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, Advocate
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.95 dated 23.08.2010 under Sections 302, 307, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Garhi, District Jind.
It is not disputed that in pursuance to the order dated 04.04.2012, the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court. His bail bonds have been accepted and he has been released on bail.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the Order
dated 04.04.2012 passed by this Court is made absolute.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
08.05.2012 gurpreet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow a petition for anticipatory bail where the petitioner has already appeared and been released on bail pursuant to an earlier order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jethu Ram
State of Haryana
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
