Rajendra Choubisa v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 417
- Information Technology Act, 2000 s. 66(D)
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *** Present: Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. *** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2, dated 29.07.2024, under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC (Section 417 of IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 added subsequently), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Pathankot, District Pathankot.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the present petition at this stage and the same be dismissed as such.
Dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
22.01.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) RITTU 2025.01.23 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 417; Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(D).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Jan 2025. The bench was RAJESH BHARDWAJ.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.