PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA
Anil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
63 | 06.02.2023 | Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, District Gurugram | 420, 120-B, 506 & 406 IPC and Section 7& 13-B of PC Act added later on |
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 seeking bail.
2. As per the custody certificate dated 25.04.2024 filed by the State, one case is pending against the petitioner, detail of which is as under:-
Sr. No. | FIR No. | Date | Offences | Police Station |
1 | 316 | 06.11.2023 | 406, 506, 420,120B IPC | 17/18, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon |
3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail. The State's
The court established that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the protection of the accused's rights.
The court emphasized that bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must balance the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial, allowing bail given the minor financ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.