CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Parveen Ahuja and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 August 2012 · Citation: (2012) 08 P&H CK 0257

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319, 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 307, 436
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-22259 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

8 paragraphs · 330 words

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points with regard to grant of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions for anticipatory bail, arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order in order to avoid the repetition. Petitioners have directed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them in which they were found innocent during the investigation but were subsequently summoned by the trial Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. vide FIR No. 232 dated 13.10.2010, on accusation of having committed offence punishable under Sections 148/149/307/436 of Indian Penal Code, by the police of Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Notice of the petitions was issued to the State.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

4.

During the course of preliminary hearing, this Court passed the following order on July 30, 2012 in Crl. Misc. No. M-22259 of 2012:

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR. There is a delay of 25 days in recording the FIR and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial u/s 319 Cr.P.C. after two years of the occurrence.

Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 22.08.2012.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender on 07.08.2012 and the trial Court would admit them on (provisional) bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction

5.

At the very outset, the learned counsel has produced certified copy of the order dated 07.08.2012, which would reveal that the bail bonds and surety bonds submitted by the petitioners have already been accepted and attested by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. In this view of the matter, the interim bails already granted are hereby made absolute.