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

2004 Supreme(P&H) 147

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
R. K. Thukral – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mansur Ali, DAG, Pb.

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - Heard.

Offence alleged agaisnt the petitioner is under section 7 of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 read with Clause 19 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

2. Case of the prosecution is that a sample of fertilizer was taken which was manufactured by the company represented by the respondent and the same was found to be deficient. It is stated in the petition that custodial interrogation of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.

3. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law. If bail is declined, the petitioner will be given two weeks time to apply for bail in this Court.

4. In the event of arrest, petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the conditions that the petitioner will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such



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