Allowed

Kiranjeet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2013CRM-M/38372/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court confirmed an interim bail order dated 04.12.2012. Relying on the fact that petitioners joined investigation and police submitted no need for custodial interrogation, the Court made the interim order absolute subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail is confirmed and made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Kiranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-38372 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-38372 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: April 5, 2013

¶5

Kiranjeet Kaur and another

.....Petitioners

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.G.S.Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶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 petitioners in cross-case, i.e. DDR No.28 dated 15.8.2012 under Sections 452, 323, 148, 149, 506 IPC in FIR No.153, registered at Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur.

¶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 4.12.2012, passed the following order:

¶18

“CRM No.72902 of 2012

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.M-38372 of 2012

¶20

Contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and that matter has since been compromised between the parties. It is also contended that moreover only Lalkara has been attributed to petitioner no.1 and simple injury with stick has been attributed to petitioner no.2.

¶21

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 22.01.2013.

¶22

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join

¶23

Crl.M.No.M-38372 of 2012(O&M)

¶24

-2-

¶25

the investigation and in case of their arrest, they shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶26

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

¶27

It has been stated by learned State counsel as well on instructions from ASI Gurmeet Singh that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. Bail application is not opposed.

¶28

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are 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 4.12.2012, granting interim bail to petitioners-Kiranjeet Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh alias Rattna 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

5.4.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Kiranjeet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiranjeet Kaur & Anr. 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

Jaswinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Charanjeet Singh @ Channi Vs State of Punjab

Hari Ram @ Harri Vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manpreet Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Virender Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.