Mandheer Singh Alias Laddi v. State Of Punjab

2024:PHHC:056172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2970-2024 Date of decision : 25.04.2024 MANDHEER SINGH ALIAS LADDI ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 25.01.2024, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0191 dated 29.10.2023, registered under Sections 307/324/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda petitioner seeks prearrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia relies upon order dated 30.12.2023 passed in BA-4784-2023 to submit that the question with respect to maintainability of the petitions filed under Section 438 of the Code at the instance of juvenile is pending consideration before Supreme Court in Spl.Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12659/2023 titled as Yuvraj Vs. The State of Rajasthan and the petitioner has been non-suited only on the ground of non-maintainability.

Notice of motion for 25.04.2024.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/ Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C." Deepak Kumar 2024.04.25 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2970-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:056172 2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from HC Bikkar Singh submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 25.01.2024 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner 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.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

7.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

April 25, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.04.25 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document