Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KULDIP SHARMA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kuldip Sharma v. State of Punjab - CRM-61440-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10934 (21 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.Misc.No.61440-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 27, 2006

Kuldip Sharma

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Sandeep Chopra, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.N.S.Gill, AAG, Punjab.

...

Petitioner Kuldip Sharma apprehending his arrest in a non- bailable offence in case FIR No.262 dated 28.10.2005 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, Section 420 IPC and Section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

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

Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the prosecution version, some bags of fertilizer were recovered from a standing truck. The driver was apprehended on the spot and on his interrogation, it revealed that the bags were lifted from the house of Harjinder Singh. Subsequently, from the house of Harjinder Singh, 93 more bags were recovered. Counsel further contends that the only allegation against the petitioner is that when the fertilizer bags were recovered from the truck, the petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence and subsequently he fled away from the spot.

Counsel contends that the petitioner has nothing to do with the fertilizer bags as he is neither owner of the truck nor has purchased the fertilizer.

Even as per report of the chemical examiner, it has not been confirmed whether the bags contained fertilizer or something else.

Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in terms of the interim order dated October 10, 2006, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute this fact and further on instructions from ASI Kashmir Singh states that in this case challan has been presented and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

In view of the above, the interim order dated October 10, 2006 is made absolute.

Disposed of accordingly.

November 27, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)

vkg 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.