Dismissed

Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jan 2017CRM-M/1931/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition filed under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused. The court held that the prosecutorial counsel, present during bail grant, failed to raise the alleged concealment or forgery issues earlier, and no ground was made out for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail is dismissed finding no merit.

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

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-1931 of 2017

¶3

Date of decision:30.1.2017

Gurdev Singh

...Petitioner

State of Haryana and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶10

.....

¶11

Present: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2/accused-Akash Verma vide order dated 10.8.2016 passed by this Court in case FIR No.464 dated 5.5.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶15

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused/respondent No.2 had concealed some important facts from the Court and the documents submitted by the accused/ respondent No.2 are forged one.

¶16

When the anticipatory bail was allowed by this Court to the

¶17

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.01 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.M-1931 of 2017

¶19

[2]

¶20

accused/respondent No.2, counsel for the complainant/petitioner was also present. If it is taken as it is that respondent No.2-Akash Verma had concealed material facts from the Court, then as to why these had not been brought to the notice of this Court at that very time by the counsel for the complainant/petitioner or by the learned State counsel. Similarly, nothing has been pointed out at that time regarding any other document submitted to the Investigating Officer which is forged one. Even otherwise, the anticipatory bail had been granted to the respondent No.2 in view of the facts and circumstances of that case and in view of the prosecution case in the FIR. No ground is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the accused/respondent No.2.

¶21

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

January 30, 2017.	(Inderjit Singh) Judge
hsp
NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes
Whether reportable:	No

¶24

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.02.01 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Toma Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh @ Happo Vs State of Punjab

Renu Vs State of Haryana

Hari Chand @ Dev Tungria Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bijender Vs State of Haryana

Mahender Singh (Thr Gpa Gian Singh in Person) Vs State of Haryana