✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 07 Dec 2012

Bagha Singh v. The State of Punjab

DAYA CHAUDHARY

Case at a glance

Decided
07 Dec 2012
Bench
DAYA CHAUDHARY

Outcome

Dismissed

The petition is dismissed accordingly

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

Present:- Mr. M.S. Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Bagha Singh in case FIR No.114 dated 21.07.2012 under Sections 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR, in question, was registered on the basis of secret information and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case at the instance of Sonu and others who are the liquor contractors in the Village. Said Sonu and others have caused injuries to the nephew of the present petitioner. No independent witness was joined at the time of alleged occurrence and recovery has already been effected and nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner. After issuing notice of motion, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that total 31 FIRs were registered against the petitioner and Crl. Misc. No.M-27955 of 2012 2 out of these 31 cases, he has been convicted in 29 cases and two are still pending. This factum of conviction and pendency of the FIR has not been disclosed by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is the habitual offender and is involved in so many cases because the material facts which are necessary, have been concealed from this Court. In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant him anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly.

07.12.2012 gurpreet (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Punjab Excise Act, 1914 — ss. 1, 14, 61.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Dec 2012. The bench was DAYA CHAUDHARY.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments