Allowed

Sunita v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2017CRM-M/1048/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this oral order, the single Judge allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC without expressing an opinion on the merits, accepting the State's submission that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Bail was granted with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, no contact or dissuasion of witnesses, no travel abroad without permission, and pursuit of regular bail on challan pr

Sunita Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-1048-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-1048 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 21, 2017

¶5

Sunita

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Ms. Neelam Kashyap, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.485 dated 16.11.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 197, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and she has instructions from ASI Dayanand to submits that her custodial interrogation is not required.

¶18

In view of submission by learned State counsel but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and

¶19

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.21 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶20

CRM-M-1048-2017

¶21

-2-

¶22

the order dated 18.01.2017 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶23

(i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶24

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against her so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶25

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶26

(iv) that the petitioner will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.

¶27

( SURINDER GUPTA ) March 21, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶29

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.21 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Sunita v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita 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

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jarnail Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Shubash Singh Katal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurmail Singh @ Gaily Vs State of Punjab

Rommy Vs State of Punjab