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
9 paragraphs · 307 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AAG, Punjab assisted by Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the FIR No. 10 dated 17.3.1996 registered at Police Station Sirhind. The same has taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that this FIR is dated 17.3.1996 and as a counterblast the present complaint, Annexure P1, which is dated 19.3.1996 is made. He has also argued that the alleged incident against the petitioners is of 16.3.1996 and the complaint was given on 19.3.1996 at the belated stage. The complainant is trying to delay the matter.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be said that the complainant may explain the delay during the trial. However, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.
As a result this petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 10 dated 17.3.1996 registered at Police Station Sirhind under Section 420/467/468 IPC, they be released on bail by the police on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/ each with one surety for the like amount each.
It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for police remand if he considers it proper and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
The petitioners shall cooperate with the police and remain present in the police station (sic) to them in writing.
If the petitioners go out from the place of their residence for more than two days, they shall inform the police station in advance in writing regarding the same.
This order shall remain in force for 90 days from today. The petitioners shall attend Police Station Sirhind on 10.7.1997 at 10.00 a.m. initially.