Allowed

Hans Raj v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2018CRM-M/20792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge oral order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 420 IPC, 61 Excise Act, and 63/65 Copyright Act, based on State counsel's submission that custodial interrogation was no longer required, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 16.05.2018 made absolute till presentation of challan subject to conditions of interrogation availability, not tampering with witnesses, no exit from India, and regular b

Hans Raj Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-20792 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-20792 of 2018 Date of Decision: 27.08.2018

¶5

Hans Raj ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana. *******

¶11

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶12

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.104 dated 27.04.2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code; 61 of Excise Act and 63/65 of Copyright Act, at Police Station Adampur.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sahib Ram submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is no more required for the purpose of further investigation of the case.

¶15

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 16.05.2018 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶16

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

¶17

JITENDER KUMAR 2018.08.27 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-20792 of 2018

¶19

-2-

¶20

(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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

August 27, 2018 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶24

JITENDER KUMAR 2018.08.27 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Hans Raj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj 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

Jaswinder Singh @ Ricky Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh @ Jitu Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Dass Vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab