Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3758 (PNJ)

Mangat Rai v. State of Punjab

2006-10-10

AJAI LAMBA

body2006
JUDGMENT AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case lodged under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. It is contended that it is highly inconceivable that the petitioners would be allowed to run away if the police party conducts raids. Ten months have gone by and the petitioners have not interfered with the investigation. 2. Having gone through the FIR, I find that 30 kg of beef, 2 carcasses, 3 churries, 2 kulharis and one weighing scale have been recovered from the site and the petitioners have been named in the FIR. 3. No ground for bail is made out. 4. Dismissed. - 2006 (4) LAW HERALD 3296 (P&H) PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 45518 - M OF 2006 09.10.2006 Sanjeev Jaitly Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Partap Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana. IMPORTANT POINT Anticipatory Bail - When petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation, is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1872 - Section 420, 406, 506, 34 - Anticipatory bail - Petitioner has joined investigation in terms of interim orders - He is no more required for further investigation - Interim order made absolute and shall remain in operation till the investigation culminates into filing of challan. (Para 5 and 7) JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Petitioner Sanjeev Jaitly apprehending his arrest in a nonbailable offence in case FIR No.116 dated 24.3.2005 registered under Sections 420/406/506/34 IPC at Police Station Old Faridabad, has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR. 3. This order be read in continuation of the earlier order dated August 4, 2006 passed by this Court. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the false complaint made by the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is not giving lease money of the car which was given on lease to him under written agreement. 5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the false complaint made by the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is not giving lease money of the car which was given on lease to him under written agreement. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner has joined the investigation. This fact has not been disputed by the State counsel and he further states that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the interim order dated August 4, 2006, the same is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. 7. This bail order shall remain in operation till the investigation culminates into filing of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. except for material change in the circumstances. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to the grant of regular bail by the trial Court and the same shall further continue till conclusion of the trial on the conditions to be imposed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Disposed of accordingly.