Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Mar 2011
- Bench
- ALOK SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab for the respondent – State Mr. Jashan Jot Singh Uppal, Advocate for the complainant
Operative part
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 479 dated 24.11.2010 under Sections 420, 166, 167, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. This Court vide order dated 24.12.2010 has granted interim bail in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in compliance of order dated 24.12.2010, petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel has further stated that civil dispute has been given colour of the criminal offence and in such event Court must rescue the petitioner in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dhariwal Tobacoo Products Ltd. vs. State of Crl. Misc. No. M-38349 of 2010(O&M) 2 Maharashtra, reported in 2009(2) SCC 370. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 127, irrational or indiscriminate arrest should be avoided. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab on the instructions of HC Manjit Singh has stated that petitioner has participated in the investigation, however, agreement to sell has not been recovered so far. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 24.12.2010 is made absolute. However, petitioner shall abide by the conditions mentioned under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
07.03.2011 (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of 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 07 Mar 2011. The bench was ALOK 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.