High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10627/2017disposed of

Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2017-07-11Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.07.2017 Rajesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr.Ravi K. Mattoo, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.K. Banka, DAG, Punjab.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2016 under Sections 363/366A/376/ 120-B IPC and Sections 4 & 16 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala.

This Court was pleased to pass the following order on 29.03.2017 :- "The petitioner prays for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in pursuance of order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') summoning him as an additional accused for offence under Section 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest before the Court of Sessions and the same was allowed

-2vide order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of the statement of Investigating Officer that the petitioner was found innocent by the Superintendent of Police (D) and he is not required for custodial interrogation/investigation. The wife and daughter of the petitioner against whom similar allegations have been levelled were allowed bail in anticipation of arrest by the Court vide order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-3). It is argued with vehemence that as the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused by the Court, his custodial interrogation is not required when otherwise he is ready to face the proceedings in accordance with law. The last submission made by counsel is that even as per testimony of the prosecutrix recorded during trial, it was the petitioner who went to Shimla and brought back the prosecutrix to Nabha. Notice of motion for 30.05.2017.

In the meantime, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and on his appearance, he shall be released on interim bail subject to the following conditions:- (i)He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (ii) He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court."

Further on 30.05.2017, this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- "Counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner has already caused appearance and has been released on bail by the Court below but he prays for some time to place the zimini order on record.

List on 11.07.2017."

-3Pursuant to the interim order dated 30.05.2017, the petitioner has placed on record copies of the zimini orders passed by the Court below. Since the petitioner has already caused appearance and has been released on bail by the Court below, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 29.03.2017 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

11.07.2017 (JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.

Whether reportable No.