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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 49

ANOOP CHITKARA
Satnam @ Babbu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

005

14.06.2021

Cyber Crime, Hisar,

District Hisar

406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC 1860 read with Section 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail.

2. In Para 19 of the bail application, the petitioner declares no criminal history.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

REASONING:

5. A prima facie perusal of Para 6 & 7 of the bail petition makes out a case for bail. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2021.

6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decis

    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