Maqsooddin and Another Vs State of Haryana

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 13 Sep 2012 Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-21927 of 2012 (O and M)
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-21927 of 2012 (O and M)

Hon'ble Bench

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J

Advocates

Salim Ahmed, for the Appellant; Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 323, 406, 498A, 506

Judgement Text

Translate:

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.@mdashThe petitioners, by way of instant petition u/s 438 Cr. P.C., seek pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR

No. 148 dated 19.3.2012, under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. Notice of motion

was issued granting interim protection to the petitioners, vide order dated 25.7.2012.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have joined and cooperated with the investigating agency, in compliance of the order

dated 25.7.2012. He further submits that since nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, their custodial interrogation is not required and the

instant petition deserves to be accepted.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Head Constable Devinder, Police Station Nuh, District Mewat, submits that it is correct that

petitioners have joined the investigation and cooperated with investigating agency, in compliance of the order dated 25.7.2012.

4. However, he submits that since allegations against the petitioners are direct, serious and specific, they are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that

present one is a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. I say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter

Firstly, the petitioners have joined and cooperated with the investigating agency, in compliance of the order dated 25.7.2012. Secondly, since

nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, admittedly their custodial interrogation is not required.

6. Thirdly, the view taken by this Court finds support from the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Siddaram Setingappa Mhetre versus State

of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 126.

7. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the order dated

25.7.2012 passed by this Court is hereby, made absolute. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed.

From The Blog
SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC: Written Arrest Grounds Mandatory, Oral Explanation Insufficient
Read More
SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Oct
18
2025

Story

SC Raps Insurers for Unnecessary Appeals, Delaying Payouts
Read More