Shubash @ Subhash v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10965-2024 Date of decision: May 24th, 2024 Shubash @ Subhash .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Naveen Kumar Kuhad, 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.101 dated 08.11.2022 under Sections 379-B, 323, 411, 148, 149 (Section 307 added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station S.G.N. Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda.

2.

Vide order dated 01.03.2024, 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 inter alia contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question though other co-accused were named; he came to be nominated as an accused subsequently on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused after five days of the alleged occurrence, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was one of the 5-6 unidentified assailants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not been attributed any specific role much less any PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-10965-2024 -2injury in the occurrence in question. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel qua the antecedents of the petitioner, he submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case much less a case of similar nature."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 01.03.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baljeet 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 01.03.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

May 24th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.05.24 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh