Shinda Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7230-2024 Date of decision: May 14th, 2024 Shinda Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

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

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.52 dated 29.03.2023 under Sections 379/427/353/186/279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulations of Development) Act, 1957, registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga. 2.

While issuing notice of motion on 12.02.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of having abandoned a tractor loaded with sand after intentionally colliding with the vehicle of the Mining Department, which was allegedly chasing the said tractor.

Learned counsel submits that there could not have been no occasion for the petitioner to have been present at the relevant spot on the fateful day as he PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-7230-2024 -2is a resident of Ludhiana and the vehicle was found abandoned at a place in Moga. Learned counsel submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case in hand only because the tractor trolley was in the name of his father, who is a senior citizen." 3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 06.03.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 06.03.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jaswinder 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. 6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 06.03.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

May 14th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.14 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh