SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(P&H) 559

RAM CHAND GUPTA
Harparkash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate.
Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G., Punjab.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.60 dated 28.02.2012 under Sections 323, 452, 506 447, 511, 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Tripri Town, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 29.03.2012 passed the following order:-

“CRM No.17550 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRM No. M- 8402 of 2012

Contends that it is a case of no injury and that, in fact, dispute, if any, is civil in nature. It is also submitted that petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute, which was purchased by the wife of present petitioner-Harinder Kaur, coaccused and that, in fact, complainant in the garb of present FIR, want to take forcible possession of the property in dispute from present petitioner.

Notice of motion to Advocate Ge








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top