Petitioner sought cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 in a case under Sections 376, 354-D, 450, 506 IPC and Section 66-E IT Act, alleging misuse of bail and threats. The court found no ground for cancellation since prosecution witnesses had already been examined and separate FIR regarding threats was pending.
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.
2024:PHHC:014884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
108
CRM-M-4397-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2024
NXXXX ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl., A.G., Haryana.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
HIMANSHU 2024.02.05 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
2
CRM-M-4397-2024
circumstances, when the trial of the case at its fag end and separate proceedings qua alleged extension of threats by the petitioner have also been initiated. In the circumstance, question of the petitioner’s intimidating the witnesses does not arise at all, as they have already examined. I am of the considered opinion that no ground for cancellation of regular bail as granted to the respondent No.2 is made out.
5. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
(MANISHA BATRA) January 30, 2024 JUDGE himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
HIMANSHU 2024.02.05 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail granted to respondent No.2 should be cancelled on the ground that he misused bail conditions and threatened the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
NXXXX
State of Haryana
Manisha Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
