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
15 paragraphs · 256 wordsArvind Singh Sangwan, J
In view of the resolution of the Bar, the Lawyers have decided to abstain from work.
The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0166 dated 04.08.2020, registered under Sections 323, 324, 34, 342, 427 IPC (Sections 326
and 307 IPC added later) at Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani.
The operative part of the order dated 03.11.2020, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-
“....Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to registration of the present FIR, the brother of the petitioner got FIR No. 161 dated
31.07.2020, under Sections 323, 34, 452, 506 of the IPC registered against complainant Tinu Kumar. Thereafter, on 04.08.2020, the present FIR No.
166 was registered at the statement of complainant Tinu Kumar that when he was going to the house of his relative, his vehicle was stopped by some
persons, who caused injuries to him and also broke the glass of the car.
Learned counsel further submits that the manner in which the present FIR has been registered would show that petitioner has falsely been implicated.
Notice of motion....â€
SI Ramesh Chander, Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani submits that, in pursuance to the order dated 03.11.2020, the petitioner has joined the
investigation and he is no more required for further investigation.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.11.2020 is made absolute subject to the
conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.