High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15376/2017allowed

Honey Singh Gill @ Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2017-09-07Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

-1- CRM No.M-15376 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-15376 of 2017 Date of Decision: 07th September, 2017.

Honey Singh Gill alias Ranjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Honey Singh Gill alias Ranjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.71 dated 10.04.2017, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, District Bathinda, under Sections 399, 402 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms act.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Vineet Gulati 2017.09.08 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

-2- CRM No.M-15376 of 2017 learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, the complainant who is a police officer went to a place where the petitioner was discussing with the co-accused that they are going to commit a big dacoity but without taking any action the police officer returned back. He also states that the petitioner was in the Court Complex at Bathinda and then he attended the hospital of Sunil Gupta's Hospital, where there is CCTV footage to support the version.

In pursuance of the interim order dated 24.05.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 24.05.2017, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.

07.09.2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Note:

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable :

No Vineet Gulati 2017.09.08 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh