Allowed

Rambir @ Bhola etc. v. State of Haryanaetc.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013CRM-M/13696/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered a petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioners had been summoned in a criminal case for offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 506, and 120-B. After complying with an interim order to surrender and furnish bail bonds, the court accepted the petition and made the interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was accepted and the interim bail granted by order dated 30.04.2013 was made absolute.

Rambir @ Bhola etc. Vs State of Haryanaetc. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-13696 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-13696 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 29.05.2013

¶5

Rambir @ Bhola and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajender Sarot, Advocate for Mr. Mahendra Singh Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶13

Nemo for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioners-Rambir @ Bhola & Ram Het sons of Chhajju, have preferred the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a criminal case instituted against them on a private complaint (Annexure P-1) by complainant Phire Ram son of Dungar-respondent No.2, in which, they were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 506 read with Section 120-B IPC, vide summoning order dated 09.01.2013 (Annexure P-2), by

¶17

the trial Magistrate, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶20

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the

¶21

CRM No.M-13696 of 2013 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶24

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 30, 2013:-

¶25

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the complainant has filed a false complaint (Annexure P-1), in which, the petitioners were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the trial Court, vide summoning order dated 09.01.2013 (Annexure P-2), without any cogent evidence on record and on speculative grounds.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 14.05.2013.

¶28

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit them on (provisional) bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.”

¶29

Although the petition for anticipatory bail was earlier dismissed for non-compliance of the order of this Court, vide order dated 14.05.2013. Since the petitioners had already complied with the order, so, in the wake of separate application and for the reasons mentioned therein, the order dated 14.05.2013 stands already recalled, vide separate order of even date.

¶30

Now at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the certified copy of order dated 13.05.2103, which would reveal that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, in pursuance of order of this Court, were accepted and attested by the trial Court. Meaning thereby, they had already complied with the order dated

¶31

30.04.2013 of this Court

¶32

CRM No.M-13696 of 2013 (O&M) 3

¶33

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby

¶34

accepted and the interim bail already granted to the petitioners, vide order dated 30.04.2013 is hereby made absolute.

¶35

May 29, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

Rambir @ Bhola etc. v. State of Haryanaetc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambir @ Bhola etc. v. State of Haryanaetc.

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

Maninderjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sumit Attri and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sunil Mehra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sunil Mehra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rakhi and Ors. Vs Sunil Mehra