Neelam Rani Vs.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 08, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161133

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/1161133
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Aug 08, 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

Neelam Rani

Excerpt

.........respondent(s).coram:- hon'ble mr.justice surinder gupta present: mr.avinash mittal, advocate for the petitioner neelam rani. mr.c.s.bakshi, advocate for petitioner pungrain. ******* surinder gupta, j.(oral) this order shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed under section 439(2) read with section 482 code of criminal procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent sushil kumar sachin mehta201408.13 10:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-25992 of 2014 -2- vide order dated 10.01.2014. the cancellation of bail has been sought on the ground that learned counsel for respondent-sushil kumar had made wrong submissions that respondent-sushil kumar has offered the sale of rice sheller which is worth `1.75 crores for realization of the remaining amount by the department (pungrain).it has been submitted that respondent sushil kumar was not owner of the land on which this rice sheller exists and his wife owns half share in that land and petitioner neelam rani is owner of remaining half share. it has also been submitted by learned counsel appearing for pungrain that the recoverable amount of pungrain was `2,68,36,530 and not `1.75 crores. on perusal of the order, i find that the police had already presented the challan and custodial interrogation of respondent sushil kumar was not required. trial is already going on. the submission of learned counsel for respondent-sushil kumar regarding the intention of respondent sushil kumar to pay the outstanding amount was recorded in the order but it was not the only ground to allow the bail to him. no ground is made out to cancel the bail granted to respondent sushil kumar vide order dated 10.01.2014. hence, both the aforementioned petitions are dismissed. ( surinder gupta ) august 08, 2014. judge sachin m. sachin mehta201408.13 10:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

CRM-M-25992 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

(1) Crl.

Misc.

No.M-25992 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 08, 2014.

Neelam Rani ......PETITIONER(s).VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....RESPONDENT(s).(2) Crl.

Misc.

No.M-26064 of 2014 (O&M) Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd (PUNGRAIN) ......PETITIONER(s).VERSUS Sushil Kumar and another ....RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Avinash Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Neelam Rani.

Mr.C.S.Bakshi, Advocate for petitioner PUNGRAIN.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent Sushil Kumar SACHIN MEHTA201408.13 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-25992 of 2014 -2- vide order dated 10.01.2014.

The cancellation of bail has been sought on the ground that learned counsel for respondent-Sushil Kumar had made wrong submissions that respondent-Sushil Kumar has offered the sale of rice sheller which is worth `1.75 crores for realization of the remaining amount by the department (PUNGRAIN).It has been submitted that respondent Sushil Kumar was not owner of the land on which this rice sheller exists and his wife owns half share in that land and petitioner Neelam Rani is owner of remaining half share.

It has also been submitted by learned counsel appearing for PUNGRAIN that the recoverable amount of PUNGRAIN was `2,68,36,530 and not `1.75 crores.

On perusal of the order, I find that the police had already presented the challan and custodial interrogation of respondent Sushil Kumar was not required.

Trial is already going on.

The submission of learned counsel for respondent-Sushil Kumar regarding the intention of respondent Sushil Kumar to pay the outstanding amount was recorded in the order but it was not the only ground to allow the bail to him.

No ground is made out to cancel the bail granted to respondent Sushil Kumar vide order dated 10.01.2014.

Hence, both the aforementioned petitions are dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) August 08, 2014.

JUDGE Sachin M.

SACHIN MEHTA201408.13 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Neelam Rani vs Same Subject Land Acquisition