Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

inderjit Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

inderjit Kumar vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Sep 30, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1093518

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

inderjit Kumar

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. the petitioner was granted the backward class certificate by the then city, magistrate, yamuna nagar, on 17.04.2001. the said certificate was ordered to be cancelled on 07.05.2013 and the said decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 10.06.2013. the decision of cancellation of the backward class certificate, dated 7.05.2013 has been challenged before the competent appellate authority, on criminal misc.no.m-26914 of 2013 {3} 18.06.2013. the decision of cancellation of the backward class certificate granted to the petitioner is concededly pending adjudication before the appellate authority, therefore, the fir prima facie appears to be pre-mature. the petitioner had joined the investigation and no more required by the investigating agency for custodial interrogation. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 19.08.2013 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner is made absolute. the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under section 438(2).cr.p.c.the observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding the present petition only. september 30, 2013 (naresh kumar sanghi) seema judge

Full Judgment

Criminal Misc.No.M-26914 of 2013 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-26914 of 2013 Date of Decision: 30th September, 2013 Inderjit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.V.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.

*** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Inderjit Kumar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.273, dated 30.07.2013, registered at Police Station, Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was rightly granted Backward Class certificate by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar.

The said certificate was cancelled vide order dated 07.05.2013 which was appealable and the petitioner had filed the appeal on 18.06.2013 which is pending adjudication.

In the meantime, the impugned FIR has been lodged indicting the petitioner for having committed the offences of cheating, forgery etc.that once the appeal with regard to the cancellation of the Backward Sharma Seema 2013.10.08 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.No.M-26914 of 2013 {2} Class certificate is pending adjudication, in those circumstances, the FIR should not have been registered; and that in compliance of the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Suresh Kumar, Police Station, Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, very fairly concedes that the order dated 07.05.2013 whereby the order of issuance of the Scheduled Castes (Backward Class) certificate to the petitioner was cancelled is appealable and the petitioner has challenged the said order by way of appeal.

He further concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for custodial interrogation in the present case.

Learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the premises that on the basis of the Backward Class certificate, allegedly issued on 17.04.2001, the petitioner has taken a lot of benefits of the Govt.

schemes, therefore, he is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

The petitioner was granted the Backward Class certificate by the then City, Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, on 17.04.2001.

The said certificate was ordered to be cancelled on 07.05.2013 and the said decision was conveyed to the petitioner on 10.06.2013.

The decision of cancellation of the Backward Class certificate, dated 7.05.2013 has been challenged before the competent Appellate Authority, on Criminal Misc.No.M-26914 of 2013 {3} 18.06.2013.

The decision of cancellation of the Backward Class certificate granted to the petitioner is concededly pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, therefore, the FIR prima facie appears to be pre-mature.

The petitioner had joined the investigation and no more required by the Investigating Agency for custodial interrogation.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 19.08.2013 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2).Cr.P.C.The observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding the present petition only.

September 30, 2013 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Seema Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial