Allowed

Dilnoza v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2014CRM-M/41307/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to the petitioner, Dilnoza, in a criminal appeal involving offences under IPC and the Arms Act. The State conceded she did not fire a shot and no weapon was recovered against her.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the case subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety.

Dilnoza Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-41307 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-41307 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 10, 2014

Dilnoza

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Addl. AG,Punjab.

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Dilnoza, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 3/34/20 of the Indian Passport Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, in a case arising out of FIR No.134, dated 14.09.2014, registered at Police Station, Majitha, District Amritsar.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value then also the ingredients of Section 307, IPC, are not attracted qua her; the petitioner is a woman who had visited India four years ago from registration of the case and someone

¶16

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc.No.M-41307 of 2014

¶18

[2]

¶19

duped her and took away all the documents including visa and passport; the petitioner was picked up by her co-accused Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggu who allegedly fired shots at the time of the incident and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last approximately three months. The earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.11.2014 on account of a technical fault in the vakalatnama.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Tirath Singh, Police Station, Majitha, District Amritsar, very fairly concedes that the petitioner had not fired any shot nor any weapon was recovered from her possession and as such, the applicability of Section 307, IPC, qua her would be a moot point during the course of trial. He also concedes that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case.

¶21

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Dilnoza, d/o Bahadir, w/o Mohd. Usaf, r/o Uzbekistan, at present H.No.57, Kankaji, J-1, Delhi, is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the investigation/trial of the present case, subject to her furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

¶22

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar.

¶23

December 10, 2014 seema

¶24

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶25

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Dilnoza v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilnoza 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

Jarnail Singh Vs Ramesh Chand

Asmeena Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal Vs State of Punjab

Monika and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Surjit Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Yadvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab