The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving Sections 398, 401 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. The petitioner had jumped bail but surrendered later.
Bail granted subject to local surety.
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
Criminal Misc. No. M-1243 of 2014 Date of Decision : 21.01.2014
Mohit Raghav
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present:Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
M. JEYAPAUL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, who jumped bail on 30.01.2013, was remanded to the judicial custody on his surrender on 12.08.2013 in a case under Sections 398 and 401 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Though the petitioner had absconded for about 7 ½ months, he himself has surrendered before the Court. After surrender, he has been in custody for the past five months.
I am of the view that if a local surety is insisted, there may not
be any hindrance for the trial.
Therefore, bail is granted to the petitioner to the satisfaction of
the trial Court, Faridabad. The trial Court shall insist for local surety.
Petition is allowed.
21.01.2014 neetu
(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
Rani Neetu 2014.01.23 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who jumped bail and later surrendered.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohit Raghav
State of Haryana
M. JEYAPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
