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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1203

ANOOP CHITKARA
Veena Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties :Mr. Bipan Ghai Senior, Advocate , Mr. Nikhil Ghai Advocate , Mr. P.S. Bindra Advocate , Ms. Malini Singh Advocate , Mr. Vikrant Pamboo Sr. DAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

18

01.05.2024

Anti-Corruption Bureau,

District Gurugram 409/420/465/467/471/201/120-B IPC and Section 13 of PC Act, 1988

1. Petitioner is involved in three cases of similar nature and filed three petitions for bail in all cases. Detail of one case is captioned above and remaining are given below:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Dated

 Offences

 Police Station

1.

 19

01.05.2024

409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC Act

 ACB, Gurugram

2.

 20

01.05.2024

409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC Act

 ACB, Gurugram

2. The petitioner apprehending arrest in these FIRs has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail by filing three different petitions.

3. Since all these petitions are related to similar nature of fraud and only difference among these is qua the amount, therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common order. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M No.30947 of 2024.

4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by

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