SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jagdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

CASE HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.5763 of 2020 (OM)
Decided on: 27.07.2021

Jagdeep Singh
….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab
….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.0187 dated 19.12.2019, under Section 406 IPC, registered at Police

Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

The operative part of the order dated 10.02.2020, vide

which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is

reproduced as under:-

“….Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
is a dispute regarding payment of money and in fact the
petitioner himself has to received some money from the
complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the FIR has
been registered just to put pressure on the petitioner.

Notice of motion for 23.03.2020….”

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance

1 of 2
28-07-2021 01:23:36 :::
CASE HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

to the order dated 10.02.2020, the petitioner has appeared before the

Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. It is also

submitted that the petitioner has not misused the concession of bail for

the last 1½ years.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Bhupinder

Singh, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner

is no more required for further investigation.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the

interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 10.02.2020 is

made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2)

Cr.P.C.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
27.07.2021
yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
28-07-2021 01:23:37 :::

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Your email address will not be published.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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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