Allowed

Alamdin Alias Alam v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2017CRM-M/27495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The order was made without expressing opinion on merits, noting compromise between parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 10.08.2016 made absolute till presentation of challan subject to four conditions.

Alamdin Alias Alam Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-27495-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-27495 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 02, 2017

¶5

Alamdin @ Alam

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate for Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, A.A.G. Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Vishal Satija, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.271 dated 07.07.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation and the matter has since been compromised by the parties and copy of compromise has been given to the Investigating Officer.

¶19

Learned counsel for the complainant has also endorsed the

¶20

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.03 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶21

CRM-M-27495-2016

¶22

-2-

¶23

submission made by learned State counsel.

¶24

In view of the above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the order dated 10.08.2016 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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 him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

( SURINDER GUPTA ) March 02, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

¶30

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

¶31

Sachin Mehta 2017.03.03 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Alamdin Alias Alam v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamdin Alias Alam 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

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajeev Katoch Vs State of Punjab

Mannu@ Gollu Vs State of Haryana

Saranbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surjan Singh and Another Vs Boota Ram and Another

Jai Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana