High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 03 P&H CK 0584

Mohmad Ibrahim and Another vs Raj Kumar

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M 9246 of 2011 (O and M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 289 words

Alok Singh, J.—This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 9/01.02.2008 titled as Raj Kumar v. Mohd. Ibrahim and others, for offences punishable u/s 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station E. Division Kotwali, Amritsar.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has handed over a copy of the order dated 06.11.2009, which is taken on record.

3.

Order dated 06.11.2009 reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, had allowed the bail application of the applicants directing to put appearance in the Trial Court on the date fixed, in which event the Trial Court shall admit the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to its satisfaction.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has fairly stated that despite of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 06.11.2009, Petitioners could not appear before the Trial Court that is why necessity arises for the present petition.

5.

Extraordinary discretionary relief to grant anticipatory bail can be exercised in favour of the accused who has complete faith in the judicial system of this country and who is coming to the Court with clean hands. Accused, who does not respect the orders passed by this Court, is not entitled for any discretionary relief for anticipatory bail. As observed herein above, present Petitioners - accused were granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 06.11.2009, however, Petitioners did not appear on any date before the Trial Court, therefore, they are not entitled for any concession.

6.

Petition is misconceived and is dismissed.