Aamin v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 395, 397
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Aamin in case FIR No. 144 dated 12.9.2005 registered under Sections 395, 397 IPC at Police Station Nagina, District Mewat. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The only allegation against him is that his vehicle TATA 407 was parked at the place of occurrence and he has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement. On 10.3.2010, notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that FIR was registered on
Operative part
12.9.2005 and the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed after a delay of five years. Moreover, the petitioner was found Crl. Misc. No. M-6346 of 2010 (2) involved in the alleged offence and recovery of truck, which was used in the alleged offence, has not been effected as yet. The petitioner was found involved in the alleged crime on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Akbar, Umardeen, Jagru @ Kala and Arshad. Learned counsel further submits that the case was registered in the year 2005 but the petitioner is not joining the proceedings. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as conduct of the petitioner, there is no merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and in case any application for grant of regular bail is filed by him, the same shall be decided by the trial Court on merits. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 23, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
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 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 395, 397.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 23 Apr 2010. 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.