Ramandeep Singh Alias Amandeep Singh Alias Ganja v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6249-2025 Date of decision: May 8th, 2025 Ramandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Ganja .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Raghav Bali, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.189 dated 06.10.2023 under Sections 457, 380, 413 and 414 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana. 2.

Vide order dated 03.02.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question nor was there any suspicion raised qua his involvement in the alleged theft, i.e., of some doors of the wash room of the school. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by coaccused Surinder Singh @ Sundri who has since been enlarged on a default bail. It has been further submitted that not only is the evidentiary value of PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-6249-2025 -2the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by coaccused of a weak nature, but it also needs to be appreciated in the light of the petitioner having no previous criminal antecedents, thus, pointing to the petitioner's false implication in the present case."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 03.02.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Amarjeet Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 03.02.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 8th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh