Allowed

Sunil Malik @ Shallu Mlik v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Aug 2018CRM-M/20105/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The order was issued without expressing an opinion on merits, subject to terms including availability for interrogation, not tampering with witnesses, not leaving India, and seeking regular bail upon challan presentation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 21.5.2018 made absolute till presentation of challan subject to specific terms.

Sunil Malik @ Shallu Mlik Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-20105 of 2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-20105 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 30, 2018

¶5

Sunil Malik @ Shallu Malik

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Mohit Garg , Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

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.314 dated 10.8.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation.

¶18

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Ramesh Chander submits that petitioner has joined the investigation, which is still in progress but his custodial interrogation is no more required for the purpose of further investigation.

¶19

Deepak Kumar 2018.08.31 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-20105 of 2018

¶22

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 21.5.2018 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

( SURINDER GUPTA ) August 30, 2018 JUDGE deepak Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶28

Deepak Kumar 2018.08.31 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sunil Malik @ Shallu Mlik v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Malik @ Shallu Mlik 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

Sadiq Vs State of Haryana

Rashpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Wasim Ahmad Lone Vs State of Punjab

Chatter Bhuj Vs Sharandeep Kaur Brar and Anr.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ushman @ Bablu Vs State of Haryana