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 · 208 wordsSatish Kumar Mittal, J.—The Petitioners, apprehending their arrest in a non-bailable offence in case FIR No. 132 dated 19.6.2006 registered under Sections 148/ 149/323/452/341/506/120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhakjjar, have filed this petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR.
Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners, who are 72 and 68 years old persons, have been falsely implicated in this case. He further contends that they have neither been named in the FIR nor any specific injury has been attributed to them and the other co-accused, against whom there are similar allegations, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2006, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 38929-M of 2006.
Counsel for the Petitioners further states that in terms of the interim order dated November 13, 2006, the Petitioners have joined the investigation. The State counsel does not dispute this fact.
In view of the above, without commenting on the merits, the interim bail, granted vide order dated November 13, 2006, is made absolute subject to the same terms and conditions. Disposed of accordingly.