In this oral order, the High Court dismissed the fourth anticipatory bail petition as not maintainable due to lack of changed circumstances, though the petitioner offered to surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ANKUR GOYAL 2020.03.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA authenticity of this document AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.101 CWP No.2826 of 2020 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: March 02, 2020
MANJIT KAUR
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL
Present: Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Through this petition anticipatory bail has been sought in FIR No.36, dated 13.02.2017 registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar, under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC.
March 02, 2020 (SUDHIR MITTAL) Ankur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in absence of changed circumstances since the previous order.
Manjit Kaur
State of Punjab
Sudhir Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
