High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27117/2014disposed of

Swarnjeet Singh @ Swarn Singh & ANR v. State Of Punjab

2015-01-06Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-27117 of 2014 Date of decision: 06.01.2015.

Swarnjeet Singh @ Swarn Singh and another ..Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab ..Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Ritu Punj, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondent - State.

Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

As per allegations in the FIR, there is specific mention of role of the petitioners as they have been shown to be present at the time of alleged occurrence. Subsequently, when learned counsel for the petitioners has shown that even the petitioners were not present in NEETU RANI 2015.01.08 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Criminal Misc. No. M-27117 of 2014 the Country at the time of occurrence as they have left the Country one day prior to the date of occurrence, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners were involved in the conspiracy and for that, physical presence is not required. In view of the role attributed to the petitioners in the FIR and subsequently, in the disclosure statement recorded on 22.09.2014, which was after passing of interim order on 19.08.2014, the stand of the complainant appears to be contradictory.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Paramjit Singh submits that the investigation qua the present petitioners has been completed and challan is likely to be presented. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the complainant are matter of evidence, which is to be seen at the time of trial and moreover, the petitioners have joined investigation and are ready to join the investigation as and when required.

In view of above, the interim order dated 19.08.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.

Disposed of accordingly.

06.01.2015 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE NEETU RANI 2015.01.08 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh