Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation of criminal offenses (Para 2) |
| 2. set aside impugned order due to ongoing civil suit (Para 3) |
| 3. granting of anticipatory bail and conclusion (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has been accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
3. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order as the appellant is appearing before the Investigation Officer and there is a civil suit pending inter se parties (Petitioner and Complainant) preceding the present FIR.
4. Considering the above, the impugned order stands set aside. The appellant is granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court as it deems fit for the purpose.
5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Anticipatory bail eligibility hinges on compliance with prior court orders and the seriousness of crimes charged.
Anticipatory bail granted due to the appellant's cooperation in the investigation, negating the need for custodial interrogation.
The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code, emphasizing the need for cooperation in the investigation while addressing the validity of serious allegations.
The court upheld the validity of the anticipatory bail order based on the status of the investigation, affirming the efficacy of existing legal provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
