SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Inderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2019

CRM-M No.15690 of 2018 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-M No.15690 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 24.01.2019

Inderjit Singh ….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

BEFORE :- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:- Mr. H.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate
for the complainant.

*****

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

CRM No.1798 of 2019

This application has been moved for correction of

section/offence mentioned in the headnote as well as in the prayer clause as

it has been mentioned as 406 IPC instead of 420 IPC.

Notice in the application.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab,

who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

Notice on behalf of complainant has been accepted by

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate.

For the reasons recorded in the application and having no

objection from other side, the same is allowed. Offence under Section

406 IPC be now read as 420 IPC in the headnote as well as in the prayer

1 of 2
11-02-2019 06:37:05 :::
CRM-M No.15690 of 2018 (OM) 2

clause.

CRM-M No.15690 of 2018

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has joined the investigation and this fact has been affirmed by learned State

counsel.

However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that agreement to

sell has been admitted by the petitioner and u-turn has been taken by him

subsequently. Admittedly, the challan qua co-accused has been filed. The

petitioner was away to abroad and was declared as a proclaimed offender.

Said P.O order has already been set aside vide order dated 30.01.2018

passed in CRM-M No.2166 of 2017. Petitioner has joined the investigation

and moreover, the civil remedies have been taken by all the parties. The

evidence is a matter of trial.

In view of the above, the interim order dated 10.05.2018 passed

in favour of the petitioner is made absolute.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

However, it is directed that in case, the petitioner intends to go

abroad, the prior permission be obtained from the trial Court.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
24.01.2019 JUDGE
gurpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

2 of 2
11-02-2019 06:37:05 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation