CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramesh and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 P&H CK 0318

HON’BLE JUDGES
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-24420 of 2013
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

5 paragraphs · 339 words

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Ramesh and Shyam Lal, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 452 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 117, dated 17.04.2013, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel contends that initially the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 452, 506 read with Section 149, IPC; that the petitioners were arrested and granted regular bail by the learned court below; that after receipt of the case summary of the injured, Section 326, IPC, was added and now the pressure is being mounted on the petitioners to arrest them; that the injury attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC, is not attributed to the petitioners; and that in compliance of interim directions dated 05.08.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigation and fully co-operated with the Investigating Agency.

2.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ramesh Chand, Police Station, Sadar, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, very fairy concedes that in compliance of the interim directions dated 05.08.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation in this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners but could not substantiate his submissions.

4.

Heard.

5.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were earlier arrested and granted bail and that after addition of Section 326, IPC, they have joined the investigation in compliance of the interim directions dated 05.08.2013 issued by this Court, the present petition is allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by this Court whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners is made absolute. The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down u/s 438(2), Cr.P.C.