Allowed

Azad & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Mar 2017CRM-M/1052/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order allowing a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan Act. The court granted bail without expressing an opinion on merits, subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and not leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions for interrogation, non-interference, no exit without permission, and seeking regular bail.

Azad & Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-1052 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-1052 of 2017

¶5

Date of Decision: 29.03.2017

Azad and another

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitiones.

¶12

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G. Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in case FIR No. 454 dated 29.08.2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 5 and 13 (2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Learned State counsel submits that petitioners have joined the investigation but opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to them on the ground that they are also involved in similar type of cases qua which FIR No. 555 of 2016 has been registered against them.

¶18

As per allegation in FIR, petitioners were identified carrying cattle by a person, who has been termed as secret informer. There is no other evidence against petitiones at this stage.

¶19

In view of above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and order dated 18.01.2017 is

¶20

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶21

CRM-M-1052 of 2017

¶22

-2-

¶23

made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following

¶24

terms:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

March 29, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.30 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Azad & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad & Anr. 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

Tejinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishan Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rahul @ Raldu Vs State of Haryana

Manjeet Singh @ Kana Vs State of Punjab

Simran Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Saurabh Shrivastav Vs State of Punjab