Dismissed

Hoshiyar Singh Saini v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2019CRM-M/9421/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the petitioner's failure to comply with the lower court's condition to deposit bail money and surrender warranted refusal of further relief.

What did the court decide?

The petition for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed as the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the earlier bail order.

Hoshiyar Singh Saini Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

102

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-9421 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 01, 2019

Hoshiyar Singh Saini

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in complaint case No.177 dated 05.11.2016 under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as 'Kartar Singh vs. Hoshiar Singh Saini.

¶15

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

¶16

From the record, I find that it is a complaint case and the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in this case. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated 07.04.2018, accepted the anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial Court on or before 13.04.2018 and to

¶17

VINEET GULATI 2019.03.05 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM No.M-9421 of 2019 -2-

¶19

furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, failing which, relief of anticipatory bail shall be deemed to have been taken as cancelled and petitioner was further directed to deposit 20,000/- with the trial court on his appearance, which shall be adjusted in the ultimate adjudication in the case. Since then, the petitioner, neither deposited the amount of 20,000/nor surrendered before the trial court. Now, after long period of 10 months, again the petitioner has filed this present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case that petitioner has not complied with the conditions as ordered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram, while accepting the anticipatory bail application, I do not find any ground to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

March 01, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶25

VINEET GULATI 2019.03.05 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Hoshiyar Singh Saini v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiyar Singh Saini v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Dhananjay Rai Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Kundu Vs State of Haryana

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sudesh Rani and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raghuvir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab