Anoop Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Anoop Singh vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Dec 11, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1072221

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1072221
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Dec 11, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anoop Singh

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....232 and 377 ipc. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted regular bail, but he could not continue appearing in the court and consequently, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 16.12.2011. according to him, not the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012. he further submits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner. according to him, the petitioner missed the date of hearing before the court below due to some misunderstanding on account of which he came to be declared a proclaimed offender. crl. misc. not m-33164 of 2012 =2= learned state counsel, on the other hand, admits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner. he further admits the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. he, however, disputes the factum of absence of the petitioner from the court hearing on account of some mistake. according to him, it was deliberate. be the absence deliberate, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012 and for a short absence from the court hearing, the custody of about five months is adequate punishment. in these circumstances, i find the petitioner to be entitled to bail all over again. consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned cjm, karnal. december 11,2012 (vijender singh malik ) jiten judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-33164 of 2012 Date of Decision:

11. 12.2012 Anoop Singh ..Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.

--- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Anoop Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.466 dated 9.5.2010 at Police Statioin City Karnal, District Karnal, for an offence punishable under sections 292, 232 and 377 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted regular bail, but he could not continue appearing in the court and consequently, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 16.12.2011.

According to him, not the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012.

He further submits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

According to him, the petitioner missed the date of hearing before the court below due to some misunderstanding on account of which he came to be declared a proclaimed offender.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-33164 of 2012 =2= Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

He further admits the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

He, however, disputes the factum of absence of the petitioner from the court hearing on account of some mistake.

According to him, it was deliberate.

Be the absence deliberate, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012 and for a short absence from the court hearing, the custody of about five months is adequate punishment.

In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail all over again.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Karnal.

December 11,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2012 Same Parties Anoop Singh vs State of Haryana Same Subject Education