10.2012 Harish Arora alias Rinku v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Judgment
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr. A.S.Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG,Punjab for the respondent .... RITU BAHRI,J(Oral) This petition petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 147 dated 13.8.2012 under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station City Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the orders dated 4.10.2012 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judged, Moga has granted regular bail to the other co-accused Gurbax Singh and Gurdeep Singh and vide order dated 26.9.2012 to Jagatjit Singh. The allegation against the present petitioner and other co-accused are that they in connivance with each other had looted the innocent persons by preparing duplicate driving licences, Crl. Misc. No. M- 28677 of 2012(O&M) 2 forged appointment letter and forged red light permits. The petitioner is in custody since 15.8.2012. The fabricated documents have since been recovered from their possession. The trial is likely to take a sufficient time and no recoveries is to be effected from him at this stage. Criminal liability of the petitioner is to be determined during the trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Moga. October 18,2012 (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 18 Oct 2012. The bench was RITU BAHRI.
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.