Rupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 25 Nov 2010 CRM No. M 31570 of 2010 (2010) 11 P&H CK 0403
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CRM No. M 31570 of 2010

Hon'ble Bench

Ram Chand Gupta, J

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 438, 438(2)
  • Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 471

Judgement Text

Translate:

Ram Chand Gupta, J.@mdashThe present petition has been filed by Petitioner Rupinder Singh u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 204 dated 29.8.2010 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 27.10.2010 passed the following order :

CRM No. 56217 of 2010

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRM No. M 31570 of 2010

Contends that Petitioner was never served with any notice nor was asked to produce the buses, which are lying in a private workshop at Jalandhar. Further contends that Petitioner is ready to produce the buses as and when required. Further contends that on the similar facts, another FIR No. 205 dated 29.8.2010 under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, was registered against the Petitioner in which concession of interim bail was granted to him by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Mi. No. M 28713 of 2010.

Notice of motion for 25.11.2010.

However, Petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

4. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 27.10.2010.

5. It has also been stated by learned Counsel for the State that Petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

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

7. 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 Petitioner Rupinder Singh is accepted and order dated 27.10.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the Petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified u/s 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure

From The Blog
ITAT Ahmedabad Rules: Calculation Error in Section 54F Exemption Not Tax Misreporting
Nov
29
2025

Court News

ITAT Ahmedabad Rules: Calculation Error in Section 54F Exemption Not Tax Misreporting
Read More
Delhi High Court Refuses to De-Freeze Bank Account, Cites Concealment in ₹19.39 Crore GST ITC Fraud Probe
Nov
29
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Refuses to De-Freeze Bank Account, Cites Concealment in ₹19.39 Crore GST ITC Fraud Probe
Read More