Allowed

Karambir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2013CRM-M/11496/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The court observed that the petitioner had previously been granted regular bail and that the addition of Section 307 IPC did not preclude anticipatory bail. The application was allowed with a direction to appear before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Petitioner directed to appear before the investigating officer for release on bail subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Karambir Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M No. 11496 of 2013(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 11496 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.04.2013

¶5

Karambir

¶6

........Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

......... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶11

Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ravinder Singh Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr.S.D.Duhan, Advocate for the complainant.

¶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 is an application for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 01 dated 04.01.2013, under Sections 325, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC(added later on), registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.

¶20

Learned Senior counsel has argued that the petitioner was earlier granted regular bail but subsequently Section 307 IPC was added and that by order dated 03.04.2013 passed in CRM-M No. 8597 of 2013 the main accused was granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned AAG

¶21

CRM-M No. 11496 of 2013(O&M)

¶22

¶23

as well as learned counsel for the complainant are not in a position to deny this fact. However, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that even till date the victim is not in a position to make any statement. Once they have not denied the fact mentioned above, in my opinion the present is not a case where the concession of anticipatory bail should be denied to the petitioner.

¶24

The application is thus allowed.

¶25

Let the petitioner appear before the investigating officer on 29.04.2013 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. or on any other date on which his presence is required by the investigating officer. On his so appearance the investigating officer shall release him on bail to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶27

April 23, 2013 sunita

Karambir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karambir 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

Gurjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Robin Dua Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sanju Rana @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurdip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Abhey Ram Vs State of Haryana