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.

Sumitra Devi Vs. State of Haryana

Sumitra Devi vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 25, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1138212

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

Sumitra Devi

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....behalf. the allegation against the petitioner is only regarding connivance. notice of motion for 25.04.2014. meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer. however, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under section 438 (2) cr.p.c.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from asi mahavir singh learned state counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. she is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. there is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. moreover, the dispute appears to be of civil nature. all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the court of magistrate. even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 6. in the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as sumit kumar 2014.04.26 12:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m no.9252 of 2014 -3- discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. the interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this court, by virtue of order dated march 14, 2014, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under section 438(2) cr.p.c.needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or joins the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail, in this respect. 25.04.2014 (mehinder singh sullar) sumit.k judge sumit kumar 2014.04.26 12:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CRM-M No.9252 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-9252 of 2014 Date of decision : 25.04.2014 Sumitra Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.H.S.Deol, Addl.

A.G., Haryana for the State.

**** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

(Oral) Petitioner-Sumitra Devi wife of Matwar Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against her along with her other co-accused, vide FIR No.521 dated 15.11.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad.

2.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

Sumit Kumar 2014.04.26 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9252 of 2014 -2- 3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4.

During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Inderjit Singh J.) passed the following order on March 14, 2014:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main allegations are against the husband of the petitioner.

Even the petitioner has not signed the sale deed in question.

Her husband has signed the said sale deed on her behalf.

The allegation against the petitioner is only regarding connivance.

Notice of motion for 25.04.2014.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.

However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

.

5.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Mahavir Singh learned State counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation.

She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage.

There is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case.

Moreover, the dispute appears to be of civil nature.

All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate.

Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as Sumit Kumar 2014.04.26 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.9252 of 2014 -3- discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted.

The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated March 14, 2014, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or joins the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail, in this respect.

25.04.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.04.26 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial