Rakesh v. State Of Haryana And ANR

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-21160 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:9.8.2016 Rakesh .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents ....

Present:

Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the complainant-respondent No.2.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.62 dated 30.3.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Uchana, District Jind. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Sunil Saharan, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainantrespondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.11 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-21160 of 2016 [2] respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 has not contested this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the parties have entered into compromise and petition for quashing the FIR has been filed. The present petitioner has already joined the investigation. As stated he is not required for any custodial interrogation. Otherwise also, it is a no injury case. 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 in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 15.6.2016 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. August 9, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.11 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh