Meena Devi Vs. State of Haryana

Meena Devi vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 18, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1134492

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/1134492
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Mar 18, 2014
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

Meena Devi

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....13.12.2013 passed by this court, the petitioner did join the investigation and co-operated with the investigating agency. learned counsel for the state, on instructions from asi krishan kumar, police station, city, jind, very fairly concedes that nothing has emerged on record to say that the petitioner had received the amount from the aggrieved person. he also concedes that the husband of the petitioner has already been arrested and sharma seema 2014.03.19 10:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal misc. no.m-42507 of 2013 [2].granted bail. he also concedes that in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by this court, the petitioner did join the investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required in the present case. in view of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this court vide order dated 13.12.2013 are 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.march 18, 2014 (naresh kumar sanghi) seema judge sharma seema 2014.03.19 10:17 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

Criminal Misc.

No.M-42507 of 2013 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.

No.M-42507 of 2013 Date of Decision: 18th March, 2014 Meena Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana.

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Meena Devi who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.881, dated 30.10.2013, registered at Police Station, City, Jind.

Learned counsel contends that concededly, the petitioner had not received the amount from the aggrieved person; that the main allegations are against the husband of the petitioner who has already been arrested and released on bail; and that in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner did join the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar, Police Station, City, Jind, very fairly concedes that nothing has emerged on record to say that the petitioner had received the amount from the aggrieved person.

He also concedes that the husband of the petitioner has already been arrested and Sharma Seema 2014.03.19 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

No.M-42507 of 2013 [2].granted bail.

He also concedes that in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner did join the investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required in the present case.

In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2013 are 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.March 18, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge Sharma Seema 2014.03.19 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Meena Devi vs State of Haryana Same Subject Land Acquisition