The petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition. The bench did not agree with the submissions initially but ultimately permitted withdrawal of the instant petition on the oral submissions of counsel. The order is unreasoned and devoid of substantive legal proposition.
Permitting withdrawal of the instant petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3347-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.02.2020
Baljinder Singh @ Bindi
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. RK Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
After arguing for some time, when the Bench was not agreeing with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition.
Ordered accordingly.
February 26, 2020 (RAMENDRA JAIN) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA 2020.02.27 12:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Baljinder Singh
State of Punjab
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
