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

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Surjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Cr M M No. 17430 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, Rashmi Attri, Advocate, Harshit Jain, Advocate

The main legal point established is that joining the investigation and undergoing custody under certain sections of the IPC can be grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner who had joined the investigation in the newly added sections and had undergone custody under certain sections of the IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in a case where he was accused under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner had joined the investigation and had undergone custody under certain sections.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petition and made the interim bail granted to the petitioner absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case where he had joined the investigation and had undergone custody under certain sections of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation in the newly added sections and had undergone custody under certain sections of the IPC as grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and made the interim bail absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.13 dated 10.08.2019 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC (Sections 376, 354, 511 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station NRI, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.

2. Counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant and has been arrested on 17.09.2020 and was released as the challan was not presented within the specified time vide order dated 27.11.2020. It is submitted that it is subsequent thereto that Section 376, 354, 511 of IPC have been added, which would not be applicable upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that having being released on bail and only sections being added subsequently, his custody would no longer be required. Counsel for the complainant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail by contending that the petitioner herein after the registration of the FIR under Section 406, 498-A had connived in sending the other accused abroad, who have now been declared as Proclaimed Offenders. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Surjit Singh submits that the petitioner has joined investigation.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that petitioner has joined the investigation in the newly added sections and has undergone custody under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 27.04.2021 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

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 Back to top