Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.03.2025 (i) CRM-M-2845-2025 (O&M) Suraj Bhatia
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(ii) CRM-M-2855-2025 (O&M) Harsh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(iii) CRM-M-2900-2025 (O&M) Jagjeet Singh @ Jagga
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(iv) CRM-M-48542-2024 (O&M) Prabdeep Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present:
Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate and Ms. Mani Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The above referred four petitions are being decided with a
common order.
The petitioners are seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.110 dated 17.07.2024 under Sections 115(2), 333, 190, 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana.
2.
On 20.01.2025, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioners and asked them to join investigation:- "Learned counsel has contended that when the petitioners had approached this Court at the first instance by way of CRM-M-44094-2024 and CRM-M-44107-2024, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioners, however they were unable to comply with the directions of this Court to join investigation, however, since the counsel for the petitioners was suddenly taken ill, he could not appear as a result of which the aforesaid petitions were dismissed for non prosecution.
On merits, learned counsel submits that a perusal of the FIR reveals that neither any specific role nor any injury has been attributed to the petitioners in the occurrence in question, coupled with the fact that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of order dated 20.01.2025, the petitioner have joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.
4.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hardev Singh,
does not dispute the factum of the petitioners having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioners are not required for further investigation much less for their custodial interrogation.
5.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 20.01.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
6.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases.
06.03.2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No