Petition for anticipatory bail in an assault FIR where Section 307 was deleted after injuries proved simple; petitioner had joined investigation under interim protection and the State said custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Interim protection order made absolute; petition disposed of.
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.
CRM-M No.6648 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
209
CRM-M No.6648 of 2024 Date of decision : 10.7.2024
Manjit Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.25 dated 30.4.2023, under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 307, 506 and 34 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 307 IPC deleted subsequently), registered at Police Station Khui Khera, District Fazilka.
Ashwani Kumar 2024.07.10 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M No.6648 of 2024 -2-
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE
10.7.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Ashwani Kumar 2024.07.10 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.25 dated 30.4.2023 under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 506 and 34 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manjit Kumar
State of Punjab
Sandeep Moudgil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
