High CourtsSingle Bench

Ram Kumar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0465

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Chand Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 148, 149, 323, 379
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-17784 of 2013 (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

9 paragraphs · 373 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. 65 dated 17.04.2013, under Sections 452 /323 /427 /447 /506 /511 /148 /149 /120B /379 IPC, registered at police station Civil Lines, District Patiala. 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, Patiala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.05.2013 passed the following order:-

Contends that petitioner had purchased a plot measuring 400 sq.yards from Navneet Kaur, co-accused, who also owned some other land and sold some other land to the complainant and that dispute is going on between Navneet Kaur and the complainant. Further submitted that moreover the only allegation against petitioner-accused is that he had given two slaps to Chowkidar and threatened him to get the house vacated.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 1.7.2013.

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 27.05.2013.

4.

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Paramjit Singh, that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. Bail application is not opposed.

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 Ram Kumar is accepted and order dated 27.05.2013 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.