Rohit @ Aati v. State Of Haryana

221-2 2024:PHHC:045760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12338-2024 Date of decision : 04.04.2024 ROHIT @ AATI ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:

Mr. Jogender Pundir, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 11.03.2024, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.10 dated 12.01.2024, registered under Sections 148/149/323/341/506 IPC (Section 25 of the Arms Act was added later on) at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the main allegation is against Sunil Kumar @ Sunny who has been granted interim protection vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed in CRM-M No.5401-2024.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondentState. To come up along with CRM-M No. 5401-2024 on 04.04.2024, as prayed for.

Interim orders in the same terms."

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.04 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-12338-2024 -22024:PHHC:045760 2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Didar Singh submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 11.03.2024 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

7.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

April 04, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No




 Deepak Kumar 2024.04.04 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document