Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/13605/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Vinod Kumar in a Section 498-A case, making the interim bail absolute subject to investigation cooperation per statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim bail granted earlier is made absolute subject to complying with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and joining the investigation.

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

¶1

CRM No. M-13605 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-13605 of 2013 Date of Decision: 14.05.2013

Vinod Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Gauravjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶15

Petitioner Vinod Kumar son of Bachan Lal has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.32 dated 09.04.2013, for commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶18

CRM No. M-13605 of 2013

¶19

¶20

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 30.04.2013:-

¶21

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that since the petitioner is not in any manner, related to the husband of daughter of the complainant, so, no offence under Section 498A IPC is made out against him. The argument is that even the petitioner was found innocent in the initial inquiry but he has been falsely implicated by the complainant, who is influential person, having the political background, in order to wreak vengeance.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Issue notice of motion to the respondent.

¶24

At this stage, Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate (counsel for complainant), appear & accept notice and seek time to argue the matter.

¶25

Adjourned to 14.05.2013 for arguments, at the request of State/complainant counsel.

¶26

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.”

¶27

At the very outset, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Joginder Singh, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this

¶28

CRM No. M-13605 of 2013

¶29

¶30

stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Nothing is to be recovered from him. All the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan), so, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time.

¶31

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶32

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this context.

¶33

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

¶34

14.05.2013 sk

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Devender Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Lakhi Ram Vs Raj Pal Singh Suhag

Yunus @ Nusa Vs State of Haryana

Kanta Rani Vs State of Punjab

Liaqat Ali Vs State of Punjab