Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARAMJIT KAUR versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Karamjit Kaur v. State of Haryana - CRM-60927-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10218 (9 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.60927-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:16.11.2006

Karamjit Kaur ..........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..........Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri M.S. Sindhu, DAG, Haryana.

****

Petitioner Karamjit Kaur apprehending her arrest in a non- bailable offence in case FIR No. 317 dated 28.8.2006 under Sections 406,420,465,467,468,471,120-B,109,34,504 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahabad, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

for anticipatory bail.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner is travel agent and she has been falsely implicated in this case because of the allegations against her husband.

Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in view of the order dated 29.9.2006, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Counsel for the respondent-State on instructions from ASI Raghubir Singh does not dispute this fact and further states that the petitioner is no more required for custodial interrogation.

In view of the above, the interim bail, granted vide order dated 29.9.2006 is made absolute subject to the same terms and conditions.

This bail order shall remain in operation till the investigation culminates into filing of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. except for material change in the circumstances. Thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to the grant of regular bail by the trial Court and the same shall further continue till conclusion of the trial on the conditions to be imposed by the court of competent jurisdiction.

Disposed of accordingly.

November 16, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)

pooja JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.