Bikramjit Singh Cheema v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.21590 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.21590 of 2018 Decided on: 20.09.2018 Bikramjit Singh Cheema ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.158 dated 31.07.2017, registered under Sections 324, 341, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala. The operative part of the order dated 21.05.2018, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:- "....Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, petitioner was released on regular bail, as challan against him was presented under Sections 324, 341, 506, 34 IPC.

It is further submitted that the challan against coaccused Tarunveer Sharma was presented under Section 307 IPC and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that apprehending his arrest, in the event of submission of challan against the petitioner along with his co-accused before the Court of Sessions, the petitioner has moved an application for anticipatory MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.

CRM-M No.21590 of 2018 bail, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.05.2018 with the observations that the petitioner should seek anticipatory bail from the High Court as the Sessions Court cannot issue directions to itself to admit the accused-petitioner on bail in case charge is framed under Section 307 IPC against both the accused persons. The counsel further submits that there is no such bar as anticipatory bail lie before Court of Sessions even in case of an offence triable by it. Notice of motion for 20.09.2018...."

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance to the order dated 21.05.2018, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. It is further submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, has also framed charges and the petitioner is facing the trial. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also been granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.09.2018.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mewa Singh, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.05.2018 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 20.09.2018 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh