Allowed

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2013CRM-M/11122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The High Court decided the matter without examining the merits based on the simple nature of injuries and the uncontradicted fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in two similar pending cases, while the third was pending.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner released on bail if arrested; directed to join investigation.

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-M No.11122 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R.M-M No.11122 of 2013 Date of decision : 22.04.2013

¶5

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar

...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

¶19

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.14 dated 09.02.2013 registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Balachaur.

¶20

On 05.04.2013 the following contention was noticed:-

¶21

“Learned counsel has argued that from the nature of injuries Section 307 IPC may not be made out since all of them are abrasions and contusions and even the other injured has received similar injuries.”

¶22

Thereafter, on 12.04.2013 the following order was passed:-

¶23

“Learned Addl.AG has brought to the notice of the Court that two more cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner. She has given the

¶24

::2::

¶25

CRM-M No.11122 of 2013 (O&M)

¶26

details thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner who seeks a short adjournment to verify the same.

¶27

Adjourned to 22.04.2013.”

¶28

Today, the learned Additional Advocate General states that actually there were three more cases pending against the petitioner but he has been acquitted in two of them and the third case is pending. She has however not disputed the factual assertion that all the injuries are simple in nature.

¶29

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Resultantly, the petition is allowed.

¶31

In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶32

The petitioner is further directed to join the investigation. Let him appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.04.2013 between 10.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. and later on as and when his presence is required.

¶33

Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶34

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE

¶35

April 22, 2013 ashish

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

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

(O&M) Rajinder Kaur Sethi Vs Baljinder Singh

Nishant Sharma @ Pandit Vs State of Punjab

Niyamat Vs State of Haryana

Gurjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Robin Dua Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Simarpal Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.