Regular bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for an FIR involving IPC and Arms Act offences. The petitioner had already been granted bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, so counsel sought withdrawal as the petition had become infructuous; the court dismissed it as withdrawn.
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.
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25788-2024 Date of Decision: September 25, 2024
RAVINDER SINGH ALIAS RAVI ….Petitioner(s) VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ….Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Pooja, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.24 dated 07.04.2024 under Sections 336, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act (Section 307 of IPC added and Section 336 of IPC deleted later on) registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Batala.
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the instant petition having been rendered infructuous.
Prayer is accepted.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE
25.09.2024 Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SANGEETA 2024.09.26 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Ravinder Singh alias Ravi
State of Punjab
Sandeep Moudgil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
