Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 9 August, 2023

Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Pankaj Mithal

     ITEM NO.4                         COURT NO.6                 SECTION II-B

                              S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

          Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)          No(s).   9288/2021

     (Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 29-09-2021 in
     CRMM No. 24553/2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
     Chandigarh)

     RAKESH SINGH                                                    Petitioner(s)

                                                VERSUS

     THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                                      Respondent(s)

Date : 09-08-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shahid Azad, Adv.

Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv.

Ms. Meenu Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Shailey Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Kumar, Adv.

Mr. S. Nasir, Adv.

Mr. Md. Shoeb, Adv.

Ms. Anju, Adv.

Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.

Ms. Shalini, Adv.

Ms. Gopa Shriraman, Adv.

Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.

Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Jain, Adv.

Ms. Honey Kumbhat, Adv.

Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Udita Singh, AOR Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv.

Mr. Saeed Qadri, Adv.

Mr. Shraveen Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Sangeet Singh, Adv.

Mrs. Kareena Faried, Adv.

Mr. Saahil Gupta, Adv.

16:03:35 IST Reason:

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 1  O R D E R Heard Mr. Shahid Azad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vivek Jain, learned DAG for the State of Punjab. The respondent No. 2 (informant) is represented by Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, the learned senior counsel.

2. This Special Leave Petition challenges the rejection of anticipatory bail for the petitioner who is arrayed as an accused in the FIR No. 19 of 2019.

3. From the submissions made as also the materials on record, it appears that there are large number of cases pending against the petitioner and two such cases have been registered against him after the current FIR. These later cases relate to charge of economic offences in Delhi. There are several other cases pending against the petitioner.

4. The State counsel makes submission about the petitioner not cooperating with the investigation and being evasive.

5. Considering the above, we see no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 2