Allowed

Hanpreet Kaur v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2013CRM-M/36376/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Chandigarh converted an interim order granting anticipatory bail into a final order. The court held the petitioner was no longer needed for custodial interrogation and found no risk of absconding, making the interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.11.2012 granting interim bail is made absolute subject to conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Hanpreet Kaur Vs State of U.T. Chandigarh — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-36376 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-36376 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: January 7, 2013

Hanpreet Kaur

.....Petitioner

State of U.T.Chandigarh

¶9

......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Chahda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.S.S.Toor, APP, U.T.

¶13

.....

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11, dated 9.1.2012, under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC and under Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶17

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 22.11.2012, passed the following order:

¶18

“Crl.M.No.69227 of 2012

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-36376 of 2012

¶20

Contends that earlier similar complaint was made by complainant to the police on 17.11.2011 in which allegations were levelled against co-accused Sukhvir Singh only. It is further contended that, however, in the subsequent complaint filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., allegations were levelled against the present petitioner that she introduced main accused, i.e., co-accused Sukhvir Singh to her. It is further contended that as per the allegations in the

¶21

Crl.M.No.M-36376 of 2012(O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

2^nd complaint, money was paid jointly and, however, it is contended that the same is contradictory to the earlier assertion that the money was to be returned by accused no.1 alone. Further submitted that petitioner is a lady and she was having no concern with the arrangement between complainant and co-accused Sukhvir Singh for sending complainant abroad. Further contended that earlier petitioner was employed with Markfed and that now she is pursuing further studies and is a student.

¶24

Notice of motion for 7.1.2013.

¶25

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶26

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation.

¶27

It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that she is no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police.

¶28

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶29

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 22.11.2012, granting interim bail to petitioner-Hanpreet Kaur, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶32

7.1.2013

¶33

meenu

Hanpreet Kaur v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanpreet Kaur v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

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

Inderpreet Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rakesh @ Kabra Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Singh@ Jujpal@ Jajjo Vs State of Punjab