Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA
Dilbagh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
34 | 28.04.2024 | Bhargo Camp, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar | 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act 2014 |
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 the bail application, the petitioner is silent about criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
'2. That present FIR No. 34 dated 28.04.2024 Under Section 406, 420,120-B IPC & Section 13 Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, Police Station Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar, was registered against Dilbagh Singh i.e. petitioner, Rajinder Singh, N.S. Raja Ram, Krushil, Kaushikbhai Ponkiya on the basis of complaint bearing no. 5063 DCP dated 28.08.2023 and complaint no.6194 DCP dated 13.10.2023 filed by complainant Sunil Bhatia against Dinesh Kumar, Harwinder Singh, Dilbagh Singh i.e petitioner, Nandani wife of Dinesh Kumar, Raja Ram and Go abroad Solution wherein complainant has stated that petitioner Dilbagh Singh and other co-accused have tak
Anticipatory bail is not a right; its grant depends on the nature of accusations, potential flight risk, and ongoing investigations.
The court considered the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, ultimately extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to him.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the allegations and the level of involvement in fraudulent activities are crucial factors in determining the grant of anticip....
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when serious allegations involving significant financial deceit exist, necessitating custodial interrogation for a fair investigation.
The court established that involvement in serious fraudulent activities, supported by substantial evidence, is a valid ground for denying bail.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
