Allowed

Joga Nand v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2018CRM-M/27767/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC 120-B, discharged him on personal and surety bonds, and clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 40,000 with one surety in like amount.

Joga Nand Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

237

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-27767 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2018

Joga Nand

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.09 dated 15.05.2018 under Sections 7, 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Jalandhar.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

Mr.Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested the petition.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶17

As per the allegations against the present petitioner, he has connived with J.E. of the Electricity Department. Present petitioner is not a public servant. The bribe was also demanded by the main accused and not

¶18

Vineet Gulati 2018.07.12 17:01 I attest to the accuracy andby the petitioner. authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-27767 of 2018

¶20

-2-

¶21

The petitioner has been in custody since 15.05.2018. The trial of the case will take long time. The petitioner is not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till disposal of the case.

¶22

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶23

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on

¶24

merits of the case.

¶25

July 11, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶26

Vineet Gulati 2018.07.12 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Joga Nand v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Nand v. State of Punjab

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

Jagsir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Niwas Vs State of Punjab

Harwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ombir Vs State of Haryana

Birbal Singh @ Babbi Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana