Bharat Bhushan vs State Of Punjab - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 675

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 675

RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Bharat Bhushan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, Mr. Tushar Rawal, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Singh, Advocate, Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate and Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.42290 of 2022. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitin Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M Nos.41913 and 41915 of 2022. Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.45678 of 2022. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate and Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.46641 of 2022., for the Appellant; Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Advocate, Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl., A.G., Punjab and Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Rajkaran Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the victim., for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, CRM-M No.42290 of 2022 titled Bharat Bhushan Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.41913 of 2022 titled Sandeep Bhatia Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.41915 of 2022 titled Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.45678 of 2022 titled Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M No.46641 of 2022 titled Anil Jain Vs. State of Punjab are being decided. Since all the cases have arisen from the same FIR, therefore, the facts are being culled out from CRM-M No.42290 of 2022.

2. In CRM-M No.42290 of 2022, petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.11 dated 16.08.2022 registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Ludhiana.

3. In CRM-M No.41913, 41915, 45678 and 46641 of 2022, the petitioners therein seek grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.11 dated 16.08.2022 registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7,8, 12, 13(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the case laws listed explicitly state that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The provided descriptions do not include any references to subsequent judicial treatment that would indicate such a status. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.

[Followed or affirmed]

Fekan Yadav VS Mahendra Kumar @ Vishi - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1710: "Bail should be granted with reasons assigned."

*This appears to be a general principle or guideline, likely considered good law and possibly followed in subsequent decisions.*

Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2013 4 Supreme 236: "Court should be more careful in granting bail in case of economic offences."

*This suggests a cautionary approach, possibly affirming existing standards or principles.*

[Questioned or distinguished]

P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - 2019 7 Supreme 613: This case law discusses the principles related to anticipatory bail, including its scope, safeguards, and specific considerations in economic offences and PMLA Act. The detailed discussion suggests that this case might be a leading authority on anticipatory bail, but without further information, it is not clear if it has been questioned or distinguished in later rulings. The language does not explicitly indicate it has been overruled or criticized, but it also does not confirm its unchallenged authority.

P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - 2019 7 Supreme 613: The treatment of this case is not explicitly stated. It appears to be a comprehensive discussion of anticipatory bail law, but without subsequent case references or treatment indicators, its current legal standing remains uncertain. It could be a well-established precedent or subject to later judicial scrutiny or refinement.