Damanpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-14084-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.6.2020 Damanpreet Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sullar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amrinderjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant. (the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.77 dated 14.5.2020 at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala under Section 379-B of Indian Penal Code. 2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Gurpal Singh, wherein it has been alleged that he is working as Manager at 'G.K. Sidhu KSK Filling Station, Naiwala'. It is alleged that on 12.5.2020 four young boys came in a swift car and snatched `3,500/- from the salesman and fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that the persons, who were sitting in the car, had all committed offence in connivance with each other. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the matter, in any case, stands amicably resolved amongst the parties. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.06.11 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-14084-2020 (O&M) 4.

Today, Mr. Amrinderjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the complainant, has admitted the factum of compromise. 5.

The learned State counsel has, however, opposed the petition while submitting that the petitioner is involved in two other cases. 6.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7.

Keeping in view that it is a case of snatching of a petty amount of `3,500/- and the matter is stated to have been compromised amongst the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the concesssion of anticipatory bail can be extended to the petitioner.

8.

The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 9.

It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioner does not join investigation, the Investigating Officer/prosecution agency will be at liberty to seek the cancellation of order granting bail to the petitioner. 11.6.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.06.11 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document