Chameli Devi Vs. State of Haryana

Chameli Devi vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 31, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1123435

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/1123435
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 31, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chameli Devi

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....station pundri, district kaithal. when this case was listed on 27.9.2013, following order was passed:- “learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that son of the petitioner was arrested and has been admitted to regular bail. from the circumstances, it appears that some recovery is still to be effected. notice of motion to 2.12.2013. kataria rishu 2014.02.01 11:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m-32680-2013 -2- in the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear before the arresting officer on 7.10.2013, who shall admit her to bail to his satisfaction. it is also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required. the petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as enshrined in section 438 (2) cr.p.c.recovery, if any, made at the instance of petitioner shall be admissible under section 27 of the evidence act.”. on instructions from asi surinder singh, learned state counsel submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation on 7.10.2013 and she is no more required for further interrogation. petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and husband of the complainant was arrested and has been granted regular bail. in view of the above and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.9.2013 is made absolute and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in section 438 (2) cr.p.c.january 31, 2014 ( r.p.nagrath ) rishu judge kataria rishu 2014.02.01 11:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CRM-M-32680-2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32680-2013 Date of decision: 31.1.2014 Chameli Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH PRESENT: Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.

R.P.NAGRATH, J.

(ORAL) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.200 dated 1.8.2013 registered under Sections 323/406/498-A IPC at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal.

When this case was listed on 27.9.2013, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that son of the petitioner was arrested and has been admitted to regular bail.

From the circumstances, it appears that some recovery is still to be effected.

Notice of motion to 2.12.2013.

Kataria Rishu 2014.02.01 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32680-2013 -2- In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Arresting Officer on 7.10.2013, who shall admit her to bail to his satisfaction.

It is also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required.

The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.Recovery, if any, made at the instance of petitioner shall be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”

On instructions from ASI Surinder Singh, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation on 7.10.2013 and she is no more required for further interrogation.

Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and husband of the complainant was arrested and has been granted regular bail.

In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.9.2013 is made absolute and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.January 31, 2014 ( R.P.NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE Kataria Rishu 2014.02.01 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Chameli Devi vs State of Haryana Same Subject Education