Major Ajay Bhardwaj Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059646
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-01-2013
AppellantMajor Ajay Bhardwaj
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-6509 of 2013 (o&m) -:1. :- in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m-6509 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision: march 01, 2013. major ajay bhardwaj ..petitioner(s) v. state of haryana ..respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh present: mrs.manjari nehru kaul, advocate, for the petitioner. paramjeet singh, j. (oral).the present petition has been filed under section 438 cr.p.c.for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of fir no.335 dated 4.10.2012, registered at police station sector 5, panchkula, under sections 498-a, 323, 506 ipc. this is the second bail application. earlier application was dismissed by this court vide order dated february 13, 2013 passed in crl. misc. not m-4835 of 2013. in that petition, it was one of the grounds in para 7 thereof that he could not join the investigation because he was under treatment in a hospital. the present application has been filed and the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued about the medical condition of the petitioner and has stated that since he has been placed in 'low medical category, he is entitled to anticipatory bail. i have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. crl. misc. not m-6509 of 2013 (o&m) -:2. :- admittedly, the low medical category is not of such a nature that the petitioner cannot join the investigation. earlier the petitioner was afforded opportunity to join the investigation but he did not join. fact remains that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry, harassment, humiliation and torture, etc., which have been discussed in the earlier order. keeping in view the fact that no new grounds are forthcoming and neither there is any provision to review the earlier order, this court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. dismissed. [ paramjeet singh ].march 01, 2013. judge kadyan
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-6509 of 2013 (O&M) -:

1. :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-6509 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: March 01, 2013.

Major Ajay Bhardwaj ..Petitioner(s) v.

State of Haryana ..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: MRS.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

(Oral).The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.335 dated 4.10.2012, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC.

This is the second bail application.

Earlier application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated February 13, 2013 passed in Crl.

Misc.

not M-4835 of 2013.

In that petition, it was one of the grounds in para 7 thereof that he could not join the investigation because he was under treatment in a hospital.

The present application has been filed and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued about the medical condition of the petitioner and has stated that since he has been placed in 'low medical category, he is entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have considered the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-6509 of 2013 (O&M) -:

2. :- Admittedly, the low medical category is not of such a nature that the petitioner cannot join the investigation.

Earlier the petitioner was afforded opportunity to join the investigation but he did not join.

Fact remains that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry, harassment, humiliation and torture, etc., which have been discussed in the earlier order.

Keeping in view the fact that no new grounds are forthcoming and neither there is any provision to review the earlier order, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

[ Paramjeet Singh ].March 01, 2013.

Judge kadyan