INTERNSHIP-VI

A PRESENTATION BY ABHAYBIR SIDHU

BASIC DETAILS Some basic details about the internship are as
follows:

ABOUT THE Internship At : Honourable High Court for the States of

INTERNSHIP Punjab & Haryana

Internship Under : Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu,

Senior Advocate

Duration of Internship : July 1, 2019 - July 31, 2019

 Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu enrolled into the Bar on June

ABOUT DR. ANMOL

30, 1985. He was designated as Senior Advocate on
April 26, 2007.

RATTAN SIDHU Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu served as Assistant Solicitor

General of India, Special Prosecutor, Additional
Advocate General, Haryana, President of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chairman of
the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, and Deputy
Advocate General, Government of Punjab. Dr. Sidhu
served as the Dean, Faculty of Law, Punjab University,
Chandigarh. He was awarded the PARMAN PATRA by
the Punjab Government in the year 2004 for his
contribution to society. This is the highest Award
given to a Civilian of the State in recognition of his/her
services.

Dr. Sidhu has served as Chairman, High Court Bar

Association for eight terms.
CASE STUDY: Petition for quashing of FIR u/s 482 CrPC

JASWINDER SINGH Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

AND ORS. VS STATE ● The petitioners and the complainant were

involved in a marital dispute. Subsequently the

OF PUNJAB AND petitioners and the complainant arrived at a

settlement with an intent to bury their
ANR. differences. The complainant stated on record
that her permanent alimony and maintenance
present, past and future had been settled for a
total lump sum of Rs 4,50,000.
● A report was also submitted to the Additional
Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib wherein it was
reported that statements of parties had been
recorded and they had voluntarily compromised
the matter, without any coercion or pressure.
CONTD... Verdict

The Hon’ble High Court keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case eas of the opinion that
continuation of criminal proceedings would have
amounted to abuse of process of law and it was
expedient in the interest of justice that the same were
put to an end.

The High Court thus allowed the petition

CASE STUDY: Petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail u/s 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

SATNAM SINGH Brief facts of the case are as follows.

BOPARAI VS STATE ● The petitioner came to the office of the Forest

OF PUNJAB Range Officer, Pathankot and by sitting upon

the chair of the Forest Range Officer caused
obstructions in the work of the government
office. He also used derogatory remarks against
the colleague and stole bills of beautification of
UBDC project.
● The FIR further mentioned that there is a
possibility that the mental condition of the
petitioner is not stable.
CONTD... ● It was argued by the learned counsel for
petitioner that the petitioner undertook to not
visit any office where he may not be posted.
● Furthermore no prejudice was caused even if
the allegation of stealing away bills was
accepted because in any case duplicate bills
can always be procured.

Status : Interim bail granted

CASE STUDY: The petitioner filed a petition in the Honourable High
Court for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code

YASAR ARAFAT of Criminal Procedure.

HAJI AIYUB Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

KAPADIA VS STATE ● It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had
raised a loan of 71.5 lakhs by mortgaging a
OF HARYANA certain property whereas in fact it was later
found that they had raised loan from 3 different
banks against the same property by
manipulating and changing identification and by
creating false ownership documents like
allotment etc.
● Learned counsel for the petitioners had
submitted that the petitioner is neither named in
the FIR nor is a Director of the company in
question and is being implicated in order to
CONTD... ● Pressurise his parents, who are directors of the
company, being their son.
● Opposing the petition the learned state counsel
assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
has submitted that the petitioner is sought to be
arrested in the present case on account of the
fact that he had been harbouring his parents so
as to defeat efforts of the police to effect their
arrest and in these circumstances he does
deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
● Status: Interim bail granted because the court
felt that there was no need for custodial
interrogation of the petitioner.
 Reet Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Ors.

RESEARCH CWP 6213 of 2019

The High Court disposed of five writ petitions in which

common questions of law were involved. The writ
petitions involved the issue of noise pollution and
other allied issues. The court gave some important
directions to the states of Punjab and Haryana and UT
Chandigarh while disposing of the petitions. The same
are mentioned in a summarised manner as follows :-

● Restrictions on usage of loudspeakers in terms

of timings of dB levels.
● Restrictions on blowing of horns in silence
zones and during specified timings in
residential zones.
● Ensuring that motorcycles are fitted with
silencers
CONTD... ● Ensuring that no arms licence is issued to any
person below the age of 21.
● Ensuring that the required conditions are met
before issuing arms licence to any individual.
● Ensuring that no one carries firearms in
marriages or processions.
● Ensuring that no child below the age of 12 is
allowed to watch ‘A’ rated movies.
● Ensuring that no songs glamorising immoral
things are played in public places.
● Ensuring that no loudspeakers are played 15
days before the annual examinations.
SOME IMPORTANT Some important legal developments during the course
of internship were as follows :-

LEGAL ● Cruelty not related to dowry cannot be basis for

DEVELOPMENTS ●
conviction under section 304B IPC.
Anticipatory bail plea of the accused cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that petition u/s
482 crpc was dismissed earlier.
● Inter-state sales between successor states after
reorganization cannot be treated as intra-state
sales.
● Arbitration award cannot be set aside by hcs
invoking writ jurisdiction, reiterates SC.
● SC directs setting up of exclusive court to deal
with POCSO cases in each district within 60
days.
THANK YOU