AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Sections 147/148/323/325/452 IPC,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Sections 147/148/323/325/452 IPC,

    Horam And Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Haryana (S)

    RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. (Oral)

    The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 149 dated 27.10.2011, under Sections 147/148/323/325/452 IPC, registered at police station Bhondsi, district Gurgaon.

    I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

    This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.01.2012 passed the following order:-

    “Crl. M. No. 4800 of 2012

    Requests for placing on record Annexures P5 and P6.

    The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

    Application stands disposed of accordingly.

    Crl. M. No. 1972 of 2012

    Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

    Crl. M. No. M-944 of 2012

    Contends that no specific injury has been attributed to any of the petitioners and that specific injury has been attributed to co-accused only. Further contends that FIR was lodged by Mahipal, from the side of petitioners and the present petitioners were lodged in cross-case registered at the instance of accused party in the FIR.

    Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 21.2.2012

    However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C”

    It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitiones that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 23.01.2012

    This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State on the plea that Investigating Officer of the case has not come present.

    There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

    Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Horam, Baljeet and Ishwar is accepted and order dated 23.01.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C

    The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Horam And Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Haryana (S)
    (Feb 21, 2012)