Disposed

Ram Dutt @ Babloo v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2016CRM-M/23306/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed list No. Crl. Misc. 23306 of 2016 for anticipatory bail, made the interim order of 23.07.2016 absolute, directed petitioner to join investigation, and permitted fresh bail bonds upon challan presentation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.07.2016 made absolute; petitioner to join investigation and abide by conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Ram Dutt @ Babloo Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

GAURAV ARORA 2016.11.22 10:18

¶2

CRM-M-23306 of 2016

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl. Misc No. M-23306 of 2016 Date of decision : 11.11.2016

Ram Dutt @ Babloo

....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶12

Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, A.A.G, Haryana

¶14

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

¶16

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶17

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in a case arising out of F.I.R No. 21 dated 17.02.2016 under Sections 376/328/506/120-B IPC, registered at P.S Mahila Thana, District Palwal.

¶18

As per allegation made in the order dated 28.06.2016, complainant had accompanied with the petitioner for 4-5 days w.e.f. 03.02.2016 to 08.02.2016. It is stated that they had gone to Palwal and Vrindavan. Counsel for the State on specific query by the Court, submits that no statement of husband of the complainant has been recorded with regard to whereabouts of his wife from 03.02.2016 to 08.02.2016.

¶19

Learned State counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that the petitioner joined the investigation and the prosecutrix in her statement has reiterated her version given at the time of registration of the F.I.R. Petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

¶20

The complainant is a married lady and having children as well. F.I.R

¶21

CRM-M-23306 of 2016

¶22

-2-

¶23

has been registered on 17.02.2016 after she spent 4-5 days w.e.f. 03.02.2016 to 08.02.2016 with the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 23.07.2016 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C

¶25

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh bail bonds after presentation of the challan.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶27

11.11.20	16	(RITU BAHRI)
G Arora		JUDGE
	*Whether speaking/reasoned*	*Yes*
	*Whether reportable*	No

Ram Dutt @ Babloo v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dutt @ Babloo v. State of Haryana

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

Lovleen Kajal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surjit Kaur @ Rimpi Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Moudgil Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gurlal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.