Allowed

Pushpa and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2013CRM-M/1111/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition for anticipatory bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made absolute an interim order allowing bail to petitioners accused of cheating, forgery, and related offences. The court observed that the accused had already appeared and admitted to bail before the lower court in compliance with the interim direction. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Present petition allowed; interim order dated 15.01.2013 made absolute; bail bonds to be furnished during trial.

Pushpa and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

..1..

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-1111 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-1111 of 2013 Date of Decision: 04^th March, 2013

Pushpa and Others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Momi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State.

¶13

Mr.Kulwant Singh Banyana, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶16

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners-Ram Saran, Sanjeev Kumar and Devender Kumar, who have been summoned for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471, IPC, in a case arising out of complaint titled as “ Ramdass vs. Pushpa” pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that no role has been assigned to petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4, namely, Ram Saran, Sanjeev Singh and Devender Kumar. He further submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have been named just to widen the array

¶18

..2..

¶19

Criminal Misc. No.M-1111 of 2013

¶20

of the accused. He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 15.01.2013, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 did appear before the court below and admitted to the ad-interim bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the fact that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 did appear before the court below and admitted to ad-interim bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of bail to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 but could not deny the fact that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 did appear before the court below and admitted to the ad-interim bail.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have been summoned in a complaint case to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471, IPC. They have already appeared before the court below in compliance of the order dated 15.01.2013, passed by this Court and admitted to the ad-interim bail.

¶25

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 15.01.2013 is made absolute. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners shall enure during the course of trial provided they do not violate the terms and conditions of the said bail bonds.

¶26

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) March 04, 2013 JUDGE seema

¶27

Criminal Misc. No.M-1111 of 2013 ..3..

Pushpa and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Falia Vs Ved Parkash & Anr.

Sandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Bhale Ram Vs State of Haryana

Tirath Ram Vs Baldev Singh

Raj Kumar Vs Prem Tyagi and Ors.