(O&M) Siraju @ Sirajuddin v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 307, 379, 420, 476
- Arms Act, 1959
Judgment
Present : Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. **** M.M.S.Bedi, J.(Oral) The petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for regular bail in FIR No.14 dated 1.2.2011 under Sections 379, 420, 476 IPC registered at P.S. Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Surender alleging that his vehicle TATA 407 had been stolen while parked on the road near Punjab National Bank, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. His vehicle was recovered from Rajasthan being plied by the petitioner to carry cows. FIR stand registered against the petitioner in District Alwar as FIR No.55 dated
Operative part
14.3.2011 under Sections 143, 307 IPC and Arms Act at Police Station Baroda Meo. The petitioner had allegedly make a confession statement in the case registered at Police Station Baroda Meo regarding theft having been committed. Heard. Recovery has already been effected. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the condition that petitioner will not commit similar offence again. The petition stands disposed of. August 10, 2011 (M.M.S.Bedi) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 307, 379, 420, 476; Arms Act, 1959.
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.