High CourtsSingle Bench

Bir Singh @ Biru vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 P&H CK 0053

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 323, 427, 452, 506 · Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous -M- No. 20185 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 280 words

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.253 dated 21.04.2018, registered under Sections 120-B, 323, 34, 427, 452, 506 IPC at

Police Station Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani.

The operative part of the order dated 11.05.2018, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-

“….Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that she is Ex-Sarpanch of the

village and two persons had entered into her house and gave beatings to her son. When she raised hue and cry, neighbours rescued them and intruders

threatened to eliminate her and her husband by stating that the petitioner has given money to them for causing the murder of her husband. It is further

stated in the FIR that the aforesaid two persons were handed over to the police. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not

present at the spot and on account of party faction in the village, he has been falsely implicated in this case as presently his daughter-in-law is the

Sarpanch of village.

Notice of motion for 12.09.2018....†Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance to the order dated 11.05.2018, the petitioner has

appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Ram Gopal, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for

further investigation.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2018 is made absolute subject to the

conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.