ANOOP CHITKARA
Raja – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
38 | 07.03.2022 | Division No.2, District Pathankot | 379-B(2) & 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. | FIR No. | Date | Offences | Police Station |
1 | 41 | 08.03.2022 | 379-B(2) & 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act | Division No.2, District Pathankot |
3. On March 7, 2022, the petitioner and his accomplices snatched bike from a boy aged 14 years.
4. 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.
5. While opposing the bail, Ld. counsel representing the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
6. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.