SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 8 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM M-10183-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision : 08.03.2019
Mukesh Kumar
…… Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab
…… Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

***

Present : Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the complainant.

***

RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR

No.12 dated 24.01.2019, registered under Section 354 IPC, at Police

Station Satnampura, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

It has been submitted that the compromise has been effected

between the parties and the petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of

compromise has already been filed which is pending.

Learned counsel for the complainant has also admitted the fact

regarding compromise and has stated that he has no objection if the bail

petition of the petitioner is allowed.

The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 29.01.2019. The

trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by

keeping the petitioner in custody any further.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and

1 of 2
10-03-2019 22:35:13 :::
CRM M-10183-2019 (OM) -2-

keeping in view the fact that conclusion of trial will take considerably long

time, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner Mukesh Kumar is ordered

to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to

the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty

Magistrate, subject to following terms:-

(a) The petitioner shall comply with the conditions
mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

(b) In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the
benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand
withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel
his bail bond and surety bond and proceed to procure
his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality
the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

(c) He shall not leave the country without the previous
permission of the Court.

( RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)
08.03.2019 JUDGE
mamta

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
10-03-2019 22:35:13 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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