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
13 paragraphs · 250 wordsThe petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The
petition is taken up through videoconference on the basis of such undertaking.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the case because of marital discord. First Information Report
was registered on the basis of the incident, which occurred much earlier.
The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. However, he is unable to produce documents, which would warrant the custodial
detention of the petitioner.
Having due regard to the background of the case that the incident relates to marital discord and on perusal of the materials we are of the opinion that
custodial detention of the petitioner is not warranted for the sake of investigation of the case and as such we feel that it is a fit case that the petitioner
should be extended privilege under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. As such in the event of arrest the petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer on condition that he would not tamper with the evidence and/or intimidate any witness.
The present application shall be subject to the provisions of 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
CRM 4426 of 2020 and CRAN 2584 of 2020 are disposed of.