Allowed

Liaqat Ali v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CRM-M/13827/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving sexual offences. The petitioner established a compromise deed with the complainant and noted co-accused had been acquitted. The interim bail was made absolute subject to Section 438(2) conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail granted vide order dated 03.05.2013 made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Liaqat Ali Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No. M-13827 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No. M-13827 of 2013 Date of Decision: 14.05.2013

Liaqat Ali

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J. (Oral)

¶14

Petitioner Liaqat Ali son of Moji has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, by means of FIR No.99 dated 21.8.2011, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC, by the

¶15

police of Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, 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

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order

¶19

CRM No. M-13827 of 2013

¶20

¶21

was passed by this Court on 03.05.2013:-

¶22

“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner-accused, as the FIR was lodged by the complainant on account of some misunderstandings. The argument is that now misunderstandings have been removed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, by virtue of compromise-deed dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure P-2). The argument further proceeds that even Reham Ali and Bikka @ Barkat Ali, coaccused of the petitioner, have already been allowed the concession of regular bail under the same set of circumstances by this Court, vide order dated 18.01.2012 in CRM No.M38657 of 2011. Subsequently, they have already been acquitted by the trial Court as the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

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

¶25

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.”

¶26

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

¶27

CRM No. M-13827 of 2013

¶28

¶29

stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Even since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan), so, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time.

¶30

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 03.05.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶31

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.

¶32

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

¶33

14.05.2013 sk

Liaqat Ali v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liaqat Ali 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

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab