The High Court held that a bail petition became infructuous as the petitioner had already been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by an Area Judicial Magistrate and disposed of the matter accordingly.
The petition was disposed of as infructuous due to prior grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33718-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 16, 2013
Mamta Rani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Suvir Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail in terms of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., by the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 16, 2013 Pkapoor
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 18:19 I attest to the accuracy of this order
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamta Rani
State of Punjab
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
