Lovely v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-831-2024 Date of decision: May 14th, 2024 Lovely .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the complainant. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in cross case registered vide DDR No.14 dated 17.08.2021 under Sections 452, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act in FIR No.127 dated 07.05.2020 registered under Sections 307, 506 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 09.01.2024, following submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a case of version and cross version. The occurrence pertains to 07.05.2020 wherein the complainant party allegedly fired at Sehaj Singh and Kirandeep Kaur during the cremation of one Hardeep Singh. It has been further submitted that it was after more than one year and three months that the cross version by way of DDR No.14 dated 17.08.2021 PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.14 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-831-2024 -2had been brought forth wherein it had been alleged that the petitioner, who was armed with a firearm had fired in the air. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency."

3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 15.02.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and following submissions of learned State counsel were recorded:- "Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that cognizance of the DDR in question was taken after more than 1 year and 3 months. On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel, he on instructions, has submitted that though it is a case of no injury, however, the petitioner had fired from his firearm, coupled with the fact that he was one of the instigators of the crime in question."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 15.02.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 15.02.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

May 14th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.14 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh