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.

Anu Vs. State of Punjab

Anu vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jul 25, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1158679

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anu

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

crm no.m-23303 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-23303 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 25.07.2014 anu ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice jitendra chauhan present: mr.s.k.bawa, advocate for the appellant. mr.mehar deep singh, dag, punjab assisted by asi krishan singh. *** jitendra chauhan, j. the instant petition has been preferred under section 439 cr.p.c.seeking regular bail in case fir no.68 dated 10.03.2013, registered under sections 376/363/366-a/342/120-b of the indian penal code, at police station, phillaur, district jalandhar. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is a household lady, is in custody since 18.05.2013. the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the fir and no such offence is made out against the petitioner as she has been falsely implicated in this case. on the other hand, the learned state counsel, oppose the prayer of the bail application. heard. manoj kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm no.m-23303 of 2014 -2- from the perusal of the file it emerges that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner allegedly, facilitated the rape committed upon the prosecutrix by alluring her to leave the house of her parents and conspiring with the other accused in getting the prosecutrix kidnapped by inducing her, for performing sexual intercours.with other persons by wrongly confining the minor prosecutrix. therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations and the gravity of the offence, the applicant-petitioner is not entitled to grant of regular bail. however, anything noticed hereinabove shall not construed any expression on the merit of the case. dismissed. 25.07.2014 (jitendra chauhan) manoj bhu tani judge manoj kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CRM No.M-23303 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-23303 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.07.2014 Anu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Krishan Singh.

*** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C.seeking regular bail in case FIR No.68 dated 10.03.2013, registered under Sections 376/363/366-A/342/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is a household lady, is in custody since 18.05.2013.

The name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR and no such offence is made out against the petitioner as she has been falsely implicated in this case.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel, oppose the prayer of the bail application.

Heard.

Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-23303 of 2014 -2- From the perusal of the file it emerges that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner allegedly, facilitated the rape committed upon the prosecutrix by alluring her to leave the house of her parents and conspiring with the other accused in getting the prosecutrix kidnapped by inducing her, for performing sexual intercouRs.with other persons by wrongly confining the minor prosecutrix.

Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of allegations and the gravity of the offence, the applicant-petitioner is not entitled to grant of regular bail.

However, anything noticed hereinabove shall not construed any expression on the merit of the case.

Dismissed.

25.07.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Manoj Bhu tani JUDGE Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 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