Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2024CRM-M/21088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail, the Court granted interim bail earlier. Upon hearing, the Court held the petitioner entitled to bail due to the nature of allegations and lack of investigation failure, making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order dated 29.04.2024 made absolute; pending applications disposed.

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

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-21088-2024

¶3

213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M No.21088 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

¶6

Sandeep Kumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana … Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J .

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
0112	09.04.2024	Tehsil Camp,District Panipat	406,420 IPC

¶15

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

¶16

Vide order dated 29.04.2024, the petitioner was granted interim bail which is continuing till date.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of postal receipt which was sent by “Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate Panipat” to “Mr. Ranbir Singh Jattal Panipat Pin:132105” and the postal receipt mentions the date as 16.10.2023. An original copy of the slip has been handed over to the State and the photocopy of the same has been retained by the Court.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and states that he would have no objection to the condition(s). The petitioner contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

¶19

Sonia Puri 2024.08.12 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

¶21

CRM-M-21088-2024

¶22

Counsel for the State opposes the bail but does not refute the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Given the nature of allegation and the fact that there is no allegation that petitioner did not join investigation or failed to appear before the investigator concerned. As such, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶24

Given above, the present petition is allowed and interim order dated 29.04.2024 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶25

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.08.2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶26

Sonia Puri 2024.08.12 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

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

State of Punjab Vs M/S Dhawan Rice & General Mills Bhikhiwind and Ors.

Meena Devi & Ors. Vs Jai Pal & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Garg Vs Deepak Jain

Harbhajan Singh Dhatti Vs State of Punjab and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Sukhdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others