Saurav Kumar @ Saurav v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 24 May 2024
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 392
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab --- SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) The petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.117 dated 14.6.2022, under Sections 392 and 307 IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Tiba, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
After arguing for some time, once the Court was not inclined with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he prays for withdrawal of the present petition.
Prayer is accepted. Dismissed as withdrawn. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE
24.5.2024 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Ashwani Kumar 2024.05.28 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 392.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 24 May 2024.
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.