Dharamraj v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-13789-2024 2024:PHHC:049131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13789-2024 Decided on: 10.04.2024 Dharamraj

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanav Bansal, DAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 27.12.2023 Vigilance Bureau, EO Wing, Punjab, Ludhiana 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Sections 7 & 8 of PC (Amendment) Act 2018 1.

The petitioner, incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail. 2.

On 21.03.2024, when the matter was listed for first time, this Court asked the State to file response and after considering the nature of allegations and other factors, this Court granted interim bail and one of the reason of granting bail was that the petitioner had voluntarily agreed to declare his assets, which was mentioned in para 14 of the bail order.

3.

Petitioner's counsel submits that they had handed over the affidavits to the Investigator and voluntarily complied with the order of declaring assets and it is submitted that they shall not claim such declaration as self incrimination, violation of Article 20/21 of Constitution of India or any other fundamental right/law. Counsel further submits that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose. The investigator may verify such assets if required and proceed in accordance with law, if any anomalies found. The concerned investigator is further directed to forward one original copy of the affidavit to the petitioner's employer within two weeks from today. 4.

The State's counsel does not dispute the contention made by counsel for the ANJU RANI 2024.04.10 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-13789-2024 2024:PHHC:049131 petitioner, but opposes the bail.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6.

Given the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case and the amount involved coupled with the fact that petitioner had voluntarily declared assets and considering nature of allegations and also the period of custody which is more than three months, there would be no justification for further pre-trial incarceration. Petition is allowed. Detailed interim order dated 21.03.2024, is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.04.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2024.04.10 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document