Charanjit Singh Alias Charanit Kumar Alias Pindu v. State Of Punjab And Another

  

          



  !"#"

$%
&'&



  (  ) * (    +&  , -#.#      &&&  

*%  /(* &  ,

 



 
 
 



 
 
 







 
  
!


"

#### ,

0&1

(2 $
 
 %
 
"

"&

%% 

 

 
'( ''

()(*
 
"&
% 
 %

+  + %  
,"&

% 

 

 &
"

%



%% 

 
-.

/0
 '1
 
"
2
 %

-.



   & 

 !

"

$#  3"!

  "

$ )5 )6 ()(* ''3
/(1
''4
/'1
777
73'
/(1 8'
/(1

9

7/1

:


$
/
 1


% 
 92 %
 + %  
 %

2.

Heard.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that vide order dated 25.02.2025, the appellant had been directed to join


investigation and was granted interim bail. He submits that in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the appellant has joined the investigation. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions ASI Jaswinder Singh, intimates the Court that the appellant has joined the investigation and is neither required for further investigation nor for any custodial interrogation.

5.

During the course of hearing on 25.02.2025, following order was passed: - " The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the offence under 115(2), 118(1), 333/351(2), 61(2) BNS (Section 3(i) added later on) of SC and ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out inasmuch as the appellant's mother belongs to the same category as is apparent from Annexure P-2. He further contends that the alleged words were not spoken in public.

Adjourned to 25.03.2025.

In the meantime, the appellant is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS:- i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the

'

Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the appellant shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his/her/their passport, if any.

Meanwhile, the State counsel is directed to file an affidavit as to the exact role of the appellant along with the details of pending FIRs, if any, on or before the next date of hearing. "

6.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the appellant has been implicated in the instant FIR for having committed offence punishable under Section 3 (i) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. At the same time, it is not disputed that the appellant, after having been directed vide order dated 25.02.2025, has joined the investigation. As per learned State counsel, he is not required for further investigation nor he is required for custodial interrogation of the case. This be the case, the interim bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 25.02.2025 is hereby confirmed subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. The appellant is directed to join investigation as and when required in future also by way of a written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

4 7.

With these observations, the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is set aside and the instant appeal stands allowed.



   
&'&

    1 ;
  < = ><9 1 ;
 "%= ><9