Joginder Vs State of Haryana

Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 249 dated 28.2.2018, registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 34 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Panipat City, Panipat.

¶17

Complainant is present in person. She states that she had given the complaint on pressure of somebody and she does not press the same.

¶18

Similar is the response of the police. They say that the complainant has failed to give any material to show that any threat was extended.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the order dated 14.5.2018, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

¶20

State counsel states that the petitioner has joined the

¶21

GURPREET SINGH 2018.10.23 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-18819 of 2018 -2-

¶23

investigation.

¶24

Looking to the circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and order dated 14.5.2018 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 Sub Section 2 Clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

¶26

October 23, 2018 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2018.10.23 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Joginder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder 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

Rashid Vs State of Haryana

Mubarik @ Tunda Vs State of Haryana

Vishal Khullar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Dheeraj Tanwar Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Karaj Singh Vs State of Punjab