Harun v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.205 CRM-M No.6617 of 2021 Date of Decision: 31.01.2022 Harun

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

The petitioner herein has sought the relief of anticipatory bail in the criminal case arising out of the FIR bearing No.139 dated 21.07.2020 registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC wherein the offence under Section 379 IPC is stated to have been added later-on. Vide the order dated 12.02.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench had extended the relief of interim bail to the petitioner while directing him to join in the investigation within a period of one week. On 16.09.2021, learned State counsel had apprised the Court that the petitioner had not joined in the investigation and in view of the request as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, one more opportunity was granted to him NEETU RANI 2022.02.04 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC

CRM-M No.6617 of 2021 -2- .....

(petitioner) to join in the investigation within a period of 10 days. A perusal of the order dated 07.12.2021, as passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, reveals that learned State counsel had again submitted that the petitioner had not joined in the investigation and the said submission was refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the Investigating Officer was directed to appear personally today to explain the fact as to in what manner the petitioner had been noncooperative during the investigation. Today, SI Jaswinder Singh from the CIA-I, Yamuna Nagar, the Investigating Officer of this case, has joined the proceedings through the virtual mode, and he has apprised the Court that the petitioner has not joined in the investigation after 14.06.2021.

From the above-discussed facts and circumstances, it becomes explicit that the petitioner did not join in the investigation after 14.06.2021 and has, thus, not co-operated the investigating agency, in compliance of the above-said orders as passed by this Court and therefore, he does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed accordingly.

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 31.01.2022 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No NEETU RANI 2022.02.04 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC