← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/13098/2024allowed

Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-07-08Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

CRM-M-13098-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 08.07.2024 CRM-M-13098-2024 Inderjit Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CRM-M-13102-2024 Inderjit Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

This order shall dispose of above said two petitions as the same parties are involved in both the petitions. Brief facts of the case are taken from CRM-M-13098-2024.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119/121 dated 05/06.10.2023 under Section 420, 465, 467 IPC (Section 120-B IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

SONIA BURA 2024.07.09 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-13098-2024 -22.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR in question nor any specific role was attributed to him therein. The prime accused was Rakesh Kumar, who was not only named but also specifically attributed a role in the embezzlement in question. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that prime accused Rakesh Kumar had since been extended the concession of anticipatory bail by Hon'ble the Apex Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No.294/2024.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in compliance of order dated 18/20.03.2024, the petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI J.N.Saini, has not disputed the submission made by the counsel opposite. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 18/20.03.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 08.07.2024 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.07.09 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document