Vikram v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 25.8.2021 Vikram .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana, assisted by ASI Bijender.

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 31, dated 29.1.2020, Police Station Purani Sabji Mandi, Rohtak, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 285, 506 of IPC (Sections 427 and 458 IPC and Section 25, 54 of Arms Act added later on). 2.

At the time of issuance of interim directions on 17.2.2020 the following order was passed:

"Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits inter alia that even according to the FIR, there is no allegation of

- 2 - anyone in particular being shot at and all the shots were fired in the air.

Notice of motion for 27.07.2020.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the Arresting/Investigating Officer, he shall be released on interim bail subject to the following conditions:- 1.

That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

2.

That he 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer and;

3.

That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where not even a single person is stated to have been injured and that in fact the accused has been falsely implicated while levelling allegation that they had fired in the air and had tried to enter in the 'dera'. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against the petitioner and there is CCTV footage as regards the incident, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned State counsel has further informed that

- 3 - the petitioner has joined investigation though he has not got recovered the vehicle used for commission of offence. It has also been informed that petitioner happens to be involved in one more identical case.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and while noticing that none has received an injury in the instant case and the accused are alleged to have fired shots in the air without there being any specific allegation against any particular accused and while also noticing that the petitioner has already joined investigation, the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2020 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

25.8.2021 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No