Allowed

Halima v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2017CRM-M/30894/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, subject to specific terms including availability for interrogation, no inducement, no leaving India without permission, and seeking regular bail upon challan presentation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; order made absolute till presentation of challan subject to terms of interrogation, inducement prohibition, no foreign travel, and regular bail post-challan.

Halima Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-30894 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-30894 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.03.2017

¶5

Smt. Halima ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

CRM-38643 of 2016

¶15

Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to just all

¶16

exceptions.

¶17

CRM-M-30894-2016

¶18

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. 59 dated 06.04.2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal. (Offence punishable under Section 409 IPC was added later on).

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Durga Parshad submits that offence punishable under Section 409 IPC was added in the

¶21

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.15 10:02I attest to the accuracy and FIR but after investigation cancellation report has been prepared, which is integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶22

CRM-M-30894 of 2016

¶23

-2-

¶24

pending consideration before the Superintendent of Police, Palwal.

¶25

In view of submission of learned State counsel but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and order dated 02.09.2016 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶26

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

¶27

(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;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

March 14, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶31

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Halima v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halima 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

M/S Nsptl Hits( a Unit of Nsptl) and Ors. Vs Ajay Sharma

Rajwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rishi @ Baggu Vs State of Punjab

Gurjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kewal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pp/Hc Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab