CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M-6853 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: March 7 v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Mar 2012
- Bench
- RAJAN GUPTA
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 380
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M-6853 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: March 7, 2012 Satish Kumar Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ...Petitioner ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. RS Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 380 IPC, vide FIR No. 55 dated 17.2.2012 at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he is an RTI activist. According to him, there is no evidence to link the petitioner with the commission of crime. FIR was lodged by the Chief Security Officer of the University. He alleged that on the basis of CCTV footage, it has been found that the petitioner entered the administrative block from basement at 10.38 a.m. and left at 10.41 a.m., after stealing a register. This register contained attendance record of drivers/helpers of the University. On the basis of aforesaid incident, FIR was registered. In view of the seriousness of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is without Crl. Misc. M-6853 of 2012 2 any merit and is hereby dismissed. March 7, 2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 380.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 07 Mar 2012. The bench was RAJAN GUPTA.
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.