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
16 paragraphs · 282 wordsAvneesh Jhingan, J
The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in DDR No. 29, dated 13th October, 2020, under Sections 323, 452, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC in FIR No.
166, dated 12th October, 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Moga,
District Moga.
Mr. HPS Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court, however, he failed to join
the investigation within the stipulated time. The bail was cancelled vide order dated 18th December, 2020. He further submits that the petitioner is
working as a Cleaner of a truck. He went to Delhi with the truck, there was a communication gap with the counsel, resultantly, he could not join the
investigation. He also relies upon the fact that the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail.
Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts in entirety, the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation within a week. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail
subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. He is directed to join investigation as and when
called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
It is clarified that for any reason, if petitioner fails to join the investigation within one week, State shall be at liberty to move an application for recalling
of this order.