Allowed

Ankur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2024CRM-M/16564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making previous interim orders absolute. The court clarified that the protection is not blanket and limited to the specific FIR, subject to terms regarding cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in respect of FIR No.308 dated 08.08.2023 at Police Station City Ferozepur.

Ankur Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-16564-2024 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Sr. No.203

¶4

CRM-M-16564-2024 Date of decision :23.07.2024

Ankur

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for

¶12

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vinay Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶16

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.308 dated 08.08.2023, under Sections 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 308 and 325 IPC added later on, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

¶17

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Raman Kumar of the Police Station City Ferozepur, submits that in compliance of order dated 24.05.2024, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further investigation.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. Order dated 24.05.2024 passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute.

¶19

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner(s) indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be

¶20

KAVITA NAIN 2024.07.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

¶21

CRM-M-16564-2024 2

¶22

confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶23

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner(s).

¶24

The petitioner(s) shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner(s) in case the occasion arises.

¶25

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move to this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial.

¶26

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

23.07.2024 Kavita Nain Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶28

KAVITA NAIN 2024.07.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

Ankur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur 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

Jaspal Kumar @ Kalia Vs State of Punjab

Shunti Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Parmod Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gaurav Malhotra Vs Garish Chander Peshoria @ Girish Peshoria and Ors.

Rajeev and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagroop Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others