Rahul Kumar @ Pamma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12203-2025 Date of decision: July 2nd, 2025 Rahul Kumar @ Pamma .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.59 dated 28.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 458, 341, 307, 506, 148, 149, 379B, 326, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station City Rupnagar.

2.

Vide order dated 04.03.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that although the complainant had named and specifically attributed a role to the other accused while lodging the FIR in question, however, the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question; he came to be nominated seven days later by way of a supplementary statement, wherein also, although the complainant improved upon his earlier statement made while lodging the FIR in question and named the petitioner, no specific attribution much less any injury was attributed to him therein. Learned counsel has submitted that none of the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant were opined to be dangerous to life, although some of them were of a PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.02 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-12203-2025 -2grievous nature."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 04.03.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.03.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

July 2nd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.07.02 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh