CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mangat Ram vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 March 2012 · Citation: (2012) 03 P&H CK 0360

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M. No. M-3444 of 2012 (O and 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

13 paragraphs · 365 words

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case DDR No. 14, dated 12.1.2012, registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

3.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 13.2.2012, passed the following order:

Crl. M. No. 7318 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M. No. M-3444 of 2012

Contends that electricity meter was changed by the officials of the Department and the old meter was taken away by them. Further contends that it is not believable that petitioner would commit theft of old meter after visiting office of the Electricity Department. It is also contended that in fact Department officials were unnecessary harassing the consumers including the petitioner and there was demonstration against the said officials, as is clear from Annexure P6 and departmental vigilance enquiry was initiated against them.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 1.3.2012.

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he 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 petitioner that he has already appeared before the DSP, who told him that he would be called as and when he would be required.

5.

It has been stated by learned State counsel that no FIR has been registered against the petitioner though complaint was received against him on the basis of which DDR No. 14, dated 12.1.2012 was registered against him.

6.

Hence, in view of these facts, interim order dated 13.2.2012 is made absolute and petitioner is directed to join the investigation and that in case FIR is registered against the petitioner on the basis of DDR No. 14 dated 12.1.2012, and if he is required to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

7.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.