CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mam Chand and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 August 2010 · Citation: (2010) 08 P&H CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 186, 323, 324
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

24 paragraphs · 347 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 126

dated 26.04.2010, under Sections 148/149/323/324/325/326/427/452/332/353/186 IPC, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District

Kurukshetra.

2.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.

3.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 29.07.2010 passed the following order:

Crl.M. No. 37643 of 2010

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M. No. M-21260 of 2010

Argues that initially the petitioners were arrested for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 353, 427, 452 IPC and offence u/s 326 IPC was

added later on. Further argues that injury for offence u/s 326 IPC has not been attributed to the present petitioner. It is further contended that main

accused Pritam, Ram Phal, and Purshotam Lal have already been arrested and released on regular bail.

Notice of motion for 23.8.2010.

However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting

Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

4.

It has been stated by Learned Counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated

29.07.2010.

5.

It has also been stated by Learned Counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any

custodial interrogation.

6.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from

deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

7.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of

Mam Chand and Geeta Ram, is accepted and order dated 29.07.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute

subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

8.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.