Harish Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-1839-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1839-2022 Date of decision: 11.02.2022 Harish Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Loveneet Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in FIR No.358 dated 25.09.2021 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Vide order dated 18-01-2022, the petitioner was granted interim bail subject to his joining the investigation. Vide order dated 10.02.2022, the interim order was extended till today subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain present in the concerned police station at 9-00 A.M.

3.

When the matter was first taken up today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has gone to the police station, but since he was afraid of being arrested, he did not contact the investigator.

However, learned State counsel after inquiry from the concerned investigator submitted that the petitioner never reached at the police station today. Given this, the matter was again taken up after a while, whereupon the petitioner interacted with his counsel on phone and told him that he would appear at the police station at 12-45 Noon. Although the other cases of the Court were over, however, at ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.02.11 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-1839-2022 the request of counsel for the petitioner, the Court reassembled at 12-45 Noon again. Now, Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has switched off his mobile phone. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel informed that he has instructions to say that the petitioner neither reached the police station nor contacted the investigator and his phone is also switched off.

5.

Given above, the petitioner has violated the conditions of the interim bail granted to him and thus, he is not entitled for bail. 6.

Accordingly, the interim order is recalled and the petition is dismissed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 11, 2022 AK Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.02.11 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document