High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Jagdish Kumar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 January 2017 · Citation: (2017) 01 P&H CK 0218

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jitendra Chauhan
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-380>Section 380</a>, <a href=1767-457>Section
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
42054 of 2016 (O&M)
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

23 paragraphs · 345 words
1.

By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought anticipatory

bail in FIR No.207 dated 07.09.2016, registered under Sections 457

and 380 of IPC, at Police Station Rama Mandi Jalandhar, District

Jalandhar.

2.

On 23.11.2016, this Court had passed the following order:-

"Contends that the main allegation is directed against co- accused, Sunil Kumar and Prince. Co-accused, Sunil Kumar has already been admitted to regular bail by the trial Court. The petitioner is not involved in any other FIR. Notice of motion. Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. A complete copy of the paper book has been furnished to the learned State counsel, in the Court. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner(s) by the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on interim bail subject to

the following conditions:- 1.That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2.That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and; 3.That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Post again on 16.01.2017."

3.

It is contended that the main allegations have been

directed against co-accused Sunil Kumar and Prince. Co-accused,

Sunil Kumar has already been admitted to bail. In pursuance of the

order dated 23.11.2016, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4.

The learned State counsel, on instructions submits that

though the petitioner has joined the investigation, however, recovery

of certain electronic items is yet to be effected.

5.

Considering the fact that co-accused Sunil Kumar have

been admitted to regular bail, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, the interim bail granted by this Court vide order

dated 23.11.2016, is made absolute, subject to furnishing bail

bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

6.

The petition stands allowed.