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 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 22 November, 2018

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                  -1-
CRM-M-48622-2018


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M-48622-2018
                                          Date of Decision: 22.11.2018

Manjeet Singh

                                                           ... Petitioner
                                        Versus


State of Haryana

                                                          ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:     Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.22 dated 20.09.2018, registered at Police Station SVB, Hissar, under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 384 of IPC (Section 8 of PC Act, 1988 and Sections 363, 367, 389, 323, 506 and 120-B of IPC added later on).

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel has 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 gone through the record.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2019 04:29:15 ::: -2- CRM-M-48622-2018 From the record, I find that FIR, in the present case, has been got registered by one Ravi Kant Sharma, who alleged that three-four persons had apprehended him and taken him outside his house. Thereafter, they had taken him to Hansi, Narnaund, Jind and Kaithal in a car. They had also demanded `5 lacs from him. He had deposited `20,000/- in an account and then, the matter was settled for `3 lacs.

Learned State counsel argued that while handing over `3 lacs, one Manish, co-accused was apprehended. The present petitioner has been nominated on the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence; in view of the serious allegations levelled in the FIR and that the petitioner has been nominated on the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.




22.11.2018                                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar                                                     JUDGE



Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes
                Whether reportable                       :      No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2019 04:29:15 :::