← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12845/2015allowed

Ladi v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-03Mr Justice Gurdev Singh2 pages

CRM-M-12845 of 2015 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12845 of 2015 Date of Decision : 03.08.2015 Ladi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gazi Mohd., DAG, Punjab.

R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral) Prayer in the instant petition is for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 10 dated 17.01.2013 for offences under Sections 326, 323, 379, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.

When the matter was listed on 27.04.2015, the following order was passed:- "Learned petitioner's counsel inter alia contends that co-accused Jaideep Singh and Sajjan Singh @ Sajanpreet Singh, who were attributed the main injuries, have since been granted concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.07.2014 and 08.12.2014 passed in CRM-M-15380 of 2014 and CRMM-34151 of 2014, respectively. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he gave kick blow to the complainantinjured. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender in this FIR.

JITENDER KUMAR 2015.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-12845 of 2015 -2Notice of motion for 3.08.2015.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C."

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation on 19.05.2015 and is stated to be no more required for further investigation.

In view of the above and without commenting on merits of the case, the interim order dated 27.04.2015 is made absolute. The petitioner shall also abide by the restrictions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is also directed to keep on joining the investigation as and when required and cooperate with the same. Any recovery made in pursuance to the disclosure statement would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Allowed in the above terms.

August 03, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE JITENDER KUMAR 2015.08.03 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh