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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 658

ANOOP CHITKARA
Sandeep Gujjar @ Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates:
None., for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

276

19.11.2020

Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar

177, 182, 191, 193, 195, 200, 203, 211, 285, 120-B IPC and 27, 30 of Arms Act

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, , has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Year

Offences

Police Station

1.

34

2019

323, 325, 34 IPC

City Jagadhri

2.

122

2021

148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 506 IPC

Sector-17, HUDA Jagadhri

3.

1345

2017

148, 149, 323, 325, 341 and 506 IPC

Jagadhri City

4.

79

2014

148, 149, 323, 341, 379, 506 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act

Chhachhrauli

?3. Lawyers have abstained from work.

REASONING:

4. 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 facing several criminal cases.

      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