Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an IPC case. The court dismissed the petition noting the petitioner failed to join the investigation despite earlier orders allowing time. Counsel confirmed the lack of cooperation.
None granted; anticipatory bail petition dismissed.
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
Crl. Misc. No. M-19784 of 2016 Date of Decision: 24.10.2016
Anshul Kalyan
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.P.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. ****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J (ORAL)
Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 51 dated 9.4.2016, registered under Sections 323, 354, 452,148, 149 IPC, Police Station Division No. 3, District Jalandhar.
Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has not joined the investigation and he has not even contacted him.
State counsel affirms that the petitioner has not joined the investigation.
The previous orders show that the case had been adjourned twice and time had been allowed to the petitioner to join the investigation but he has failed to do so.
Petition is dismissed.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE
October 24, 2016 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.10.24 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has joined the investigation jointly with the police.
Anshul Kalyan
State of Punjab
Anita Chaudhry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
