Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURCHAIN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurchain Singh v. State of Punjab - CRM-68992-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 9575 (31 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 68992-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 07.11.2006

Gurchain Singh

.... PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for

Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

* * *

Petitioner Gurchain Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 176 dated 29.5.2006 registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga, under Sections 326/324/506/148/149 IPC.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the FIR, the order dated 18.8.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga as well as the order dated 1.11.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

From the facts of the case, it appears that in this case, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail on 14.6.2006 before Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. During the pendency of the application, vide order dated 18.8.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, the petitioner was released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Thereafter, on 1.11.2006, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. It appears that the fact of furnishing regular bail bonds by the petitioner could not be brought to the notice of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already been released on regular bail in the aforesaid case to the satisfaction of the trial court, his apprehension for arrest is totally misplaced.

In view of the aforesaid facts, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition.

Dismissed as not pressed.

November 07, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj 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.