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

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1168

RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Parmod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mehak Sawhney, Advocate, Naveen Sharma Bhardwaj, Advocate, Rajat Gautam, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.657 dated 28.11.2017 registered under Sections 23, 25, 4, 5(2) Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse)Act 1994, (In Short PNDT Act, 1994), 15(2)(B) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (In Short IMC Act, 1956) and 420 IPC (Challan presented under Section 4(4), 5(2), 23, 25 of PC&PNDT Act, 1994, Section 15(2)(3) of the IMC Act, 1956 and Section 419, 420, 120-B of IPC) at Police Station city Mahendargarh.

3. On 09.04.2021, following order was passed by this Court:-

"The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR is silent with regard to the role of the petitioner. The petitioner was nominated in the second disclosure statement of Sunil Kumar, who was arrested. It has been alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the entire process and has also received an amount of Rs.4,000/-. The reply of the State further indicated that although out of total amount of Rs.24,000/-, an amount of Rs.20,000/- could be recover

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