High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/49053/2021disposed of

Chotu Ramand Another v. State Of Punjab

2021-11-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj2 pages

CRM-M-49053-2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49053-2021 Date of Decision: November 23, 2021 Chotu Ram and another .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr.S.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0017, dated 06.03.2021, under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, registered at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

It has been contended that the petitioners were already on regular bail, however, both of them are residents of U.P. and due to their health problem, they could not appear on two dates fixed before the trial Court. He submits that absence of the petitioners before the trial Court was totally unintentional and they are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court and they be allowed to appear before the trial Court.

Notice of motion.

MEENU 2021.11.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-49053-2021 -2On the asking of the Court, Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned within seven days from today and if they appear within the said period and move an application for bail, they would have the protection from the arrest for three days from the date of their appearance. In case the application for bail is filed within the said period, the concerned Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that if the petitioners would not comply with the order, the protection granted by this order would be deemed to have been vacated automatically.

Disposed of in above terms.

November 23, 2021 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2021.11.24 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document