High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana - CRM-43412-M-2006  RD-P&H 4393 (19 July 2006)
Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana
Present : Mr.K.S.Rupal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no connection with the shop. He is neither the owner nor the landlord. The shop is owned by one Brijeshwar Agarwal, as is apparent from the ejectment petition, filed by him. It is further contended that anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been declined by the learned Court below primarily on the ground that other criminal cases have been registered against him. One of these cases has been filed by the petitioner's brother and another is a case under the Essential Commodities Act. It is further contended that the prosecution has ignored the report of the Investigating Officer that fire in the complainant's shop broke out on account of a short circuit.
Notice of motion to A.G.Haryana for 14.9.2006.
Meanwhile, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions :-
i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
Crl.M.No. 43412 M OF 2006 : 2 :
iii)that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
July 27, 2006. JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.