Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Anup - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 54824 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Fateh Saini, Advocate, Manish Bansal, Advocate
The lack of direct evidence and absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR are crucial factors in considering the grant of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - False Implication - The court considered the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the absence of his name in the FIR. The court also addressed the maintainability of the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 19-year-old boy, sought anticipatory bail under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, claiming false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal, considering the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and addressing the maintainability of the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: False implication, maintainability of bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the absence of his name in the FIR, while also addressing the maintainability of the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, who is a boy aged about 19 years have come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Sections 148, 149, 323, 354, 452, 308, 506 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no enmity between the complainant and one Keshav (co-accused). Learned counsel further submits that there are no direct evidence against the petitioner and he is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced only on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused Keshav and Billa.
3. Learned State counsel Mr. Manish Bansal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has strongly opposed the bail on the ground that once the bail is rejected by the Special Judge or the exclusive Special Court then the only appeal lies against the said order as per Section 14-A of SC/ST Act and the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file appeal.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
