Dismissed

Sadiq and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2013CRM-M/13839/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that given serious allegations including injury, theft of mobile and money, and unresolved facts, extraordinary relief was not appropriate and the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The petition for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed because the case involved serious allegations and un-recovered stolen items and injuries, making it inappropriate for extraordinary relief.

Sadiq and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-13839 of 2013(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-13839 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 1, 2013

Sadiq and others

.....Petitioners

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.41, dated 20.4.2013, under Sections 341, 323, 379, 506, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶16

Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that all of them attacked complainant while he was going on his motor-cycle to the house of his sister when he was way-laid by them. He was made to fall from his motor-cycle. All of them caused him injuries and had also snatched his mobile and `6,000/- being carried by him. He could be saved by the other people who gathered there. It has been further contended that he was attacked by all the petitioners-accused at the instance of accused in FIR which was lodged about 20 days ago regarding kidnapping of minor daughter of his sister Jaano, aged about 13 years. As per medico legal report he received four injuries.

¶17

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionersaccused that injuries are only simple in nature and that it is not possible that six persons attacked him and he got himself freed from their clutches.

¶18

Crl.M.No.M-13839 of 2013(O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

However, there are serious allegations against petitionersaccused. One of the injuries was also kept for opinion of the Medical Officer. Mobile phone and `6,000/- snatched from the complainant are yet to be recovered.

¶21

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitionersaccused.

¶22

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Sadiq, Gammu @ Gama, Hanif alias Lappu, Nimma, Sadiq and Sadiq @ Feroz Ali for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶23

meenu

¶24

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶25

1.5.2013

Sadiq and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadiq and Ors. 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

Sonu Vs State of Haryana

Kasamdin Vs State of Haryana

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajbir Singh Vs State of Haryana

Jamaluddin @ Jamlu Vs State of Haryana

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab