CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Manoj Kumar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 6 December 2012 · Citation: (2012) 12 P&H CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 498A, 506
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-35103 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

12 paragraphs · 346 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. 120 dated 14.10.2012, under Sections 498A/506/323 IPC, registered at police station Rahon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 07.11.2012 passed the following order:-

Crl. M. No. 66878 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M. No. M-35103 of 2012

Contends that petitioner is brother of husband of complainant and that he is having no concern with the matrimonial life of complainant and her husband and used to live separate even before marriage of complainant.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 6.12.2012.

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.

3.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 07.11.2012.

4.

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from HC Hem Raj, that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

5.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

6.

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 Manoj Kumar is accepted and order dated 07.11.2012 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. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.