Shri Krishan Kajal & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Judgment
Shri Krishan Kajal & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Krishan Kajal and Sheela Kajal-petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.150 dated 28.7.2009 registered in Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar Mohali, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, on the grounds mentioned therein. Vide order dated 23.12.2009, the interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner No.2 subject to conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. On the previous date, it was submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner never came to join investigation. At the same time, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she had gone to the Crl. Misc. No. M – 36408 of 2009 -2- police station, but she was not joined in the investigation. As such she was directed to join investigation on 28.1.2010 at 10.00 AM. It has been submitted by learned State counsel that she never turned up on the date to join investigation. Whereas contrary has been submitted by her counsel. The investigating officer is present with the police diary dated
Operative part
28.1.2010. As per that dairy the investigating officer remained present in the police station on 28.1.2010 from 10.00 AM to 6.05 PM and waited for the petitioner, but she did not turn up. There is a violation of the conditions as incorporated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and the same dis-entitles the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed accordingly. March 5, 2010 tripti (Gurdev Singh) 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 — ss. 438, 438(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Mar 2010. The bench was GURDEV SINGH.
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.