Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ompal vs State Of Haryana on 25 September, 2017

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                          203
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                          CRM No.M-30736 2017 (O&M)
                          Date of decision: September 25, 2017
Ompal
                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of Haryana
                                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:    Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. B.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana.
                  ****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Ompal has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.72, dated 17.01.2017, registered at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal, under Sections 420, 417, 336, 409, 315, 316, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9(4), 23 of PNDT Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of MTP Act.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the similar set of allegations, the petitioner has already been summoned in a complaint case.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-09-2017 06:31:45 ::: CRM No.M-30736 of 2017 (O&M) -2- Moreover, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 23.08.2017, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

September 25, 2017                                          (INDERJIT SINGH)
rajesh.k.khurana                                                 JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned                      :            Yes
Whether Reportable                             :            No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 27-09-2017 06:31:47 :::