Gurmit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 13, 2015 Gurmit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Ghuman, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent.

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Gurmit Singh, son of Sohan Singh, resident of village Vallah, Tehsil and District Amritsar, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 379, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR

No.164, dated 30.4.2015, registered at Police Station, 'A' Division, Police District Amritsar City.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 14.8.2015, the petitioner had joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that the civil suit with regard to the land in dispute is going on between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law/informant, Sukhbir Kaur. He also contends that during interrogation the petitioner had specifically narrated to the Investigating Officer that the wheat crop standing on the disputed agricultural field, was not harvested by him (petitioner) and, as such, there was no question for getting the same recovered.

Learned counsel for the State after taking instructions from HC Harjit Singh of Police Station, 'A' Division, Police District Amritsar City, and going through the police file, very fairly submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation, but the recovery of the stolen wheat has not been effected. However, he has read out the zimni dated 11.9.2015 from the police file and very fairly admits that in the initial three questions put by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner it was revealed that the wheat was not harvested by him.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, the present petition is

allowed. The interim directions, dated 14.8.2015, passed by this Court are made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.PC. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE October 13, 2015 Pkapoor