Namneet Kumar Alias Mikal v. State Of Punjab

2024:PHHC:009284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 206-2&3 (I) CRM-M-10-2024 Date of Decision : January 24, 2024 NAMNEET KUMAR ALIAS MIKAL -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT (II) CRM-M-11-2024 RAJWINDER SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner (in both petitions).

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, A.A.G., Punjab.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

On 03.01.2024, this Court had passed the hereinafter extracted order, upon the instant petitions:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are on parity with their co-accused-Harkamal Singh, who has been granted interim relief of pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in CRM-M-587792023. Notice of motion.

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and waives service. Adjourned to 24.01.2024.

To be heard alongwith CRM-M-58779-2023 and interim order in the same terms......"

DEVINDER YADAV 2024.01.25 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-10-2024 & connected petition 2024:PHHC:009284 2.

Today, the learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him by the official concerned, has stated that pursuant to the making of the hereinabove extracted order, the petitioners (in both petitions) had joined investigation and they are no longer required for custodial interrogation.

3.

In view of the above, the hereinabove extracted interim order dated 03.01.2024, as made by this Court, is made hereby absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioners (in both petitions) indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move an appropriate application for cancellation/recall of this order, in case the petitioners (in both petitions) violate any of the conditions, as stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973, or, upon showing any other sufficient cause.

6.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (KULDEEP TIWARI) January 24, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2024.01.25 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment