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 · 260 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned D.A.G.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been granted anticipatory bail and petitioner No. 4 is granted regular bail. However, after the same, the offence u/s 450 of the IPC has been added at the stage of charge and, therefore, they apprehend their arrests again.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a certified copy of the order of the learned J.M.I.C., Batala. The same is taken on record. It shows that offence u/s. 450 IPC is also mentioned in the committal order.
It will be proper in these circumstances to grant limited anticipatory bail, as mentioned in the later part of this order.
This petition is, therefore, allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners in connection with case arising from FIR No. 177 of 26.11.1994, for the offences u/ss. 326/324/504/506/450 and 34 of the IPC of Police Station, Fatehgarh Churian, they be released on bail by the police on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety each in the like amount.
The petitioners shall within 10 days of their arrest file a regular bail application before a competent court. If no such application is filed, this order shall automatically come to an end.
If such application is filed and dismissed, this order shall terminate 10 days thereafter.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners.