Allowed

Bir Singh @ Biru v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2018CRM-M/20185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court converted the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner into absolute bail, directing compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner and State concurred that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 11.05.2018 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Bir Singh @ Biru Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M No.20185 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.20185 of 2018 Decided on: 12.09.2018

Bir Singh @ Biru

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

¶11

Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.253 dated 21.04.2018, registered under Sections 120-B, 323, 34, 427, 452, 506 IPC at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani.

¶15

The operative part of the order dated 11.05.2018, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-

¶16

“…. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that she is Ex-Sarpanch of the village and two persons had entered into her house and gave beatings to her son. When she raised hue and cry, neighbours rescued them and intruders threatened to eliminate her and her husband by stating that the petitioner has given money to them for causing the murder of her husband. It is further stated in the FIR that the aforesaid two persons were handed over to the police. Counsel for the petitioner

¶17

MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.12 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M No.20185 of 2018

¶19

¶20

further submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot and on account of party faction in the village, he has been falsely implicated in this case as presently his daughter-in-law is the Sarpanch of village.

¶21

Notice of motion for 12.09.2018 ....”

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance

¶23

to the order dated 11.05.2018, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation.

¶24

Counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Ram Gopal, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

¶25

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2018 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE

¶27

12.09.2018

¶28

yakub

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶30

MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.12 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Bir Singh @ Biru v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bir Singh @ Biru 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Delhi Zonal Unit

Gurvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Buta Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kingsly Vs State of Punjab

Rani Bai and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others