Daulat Ram v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:01.10.2021 Daulat Ram ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The case has been taken up for hearing through videoconferencing. Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.701, dated 24.08.2020, registered under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 of the IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat. On 13.05.2021, following order was passed by this Court:- "The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that anticipatory bail was granted to the son of the petitioner namely Vijay Sehgal on the premise that co-accused

-2would not claim any title over the property and would make statement before any authority or Court to that effect. The real owner has not come forward to allege any incriminating allegation against the petitioner and his son.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the statement of Vijay Sehgal dated 08.08.2020 before the Police wherein he has alleged that one Sunil had taken documents from them i.e Vijay Sehgal and his father. They were not produced before the Tehsildar nor was any information given to them and the title was passed over to Vijay Sehgal at the instance of the petitioner. The allegations are relating to documents. Petitioner does not wish to claim any title over the property and was never intended to transfer the plot in question in favour of his son. In CRM-M No.27815 of 2020, anticipatory bail has been granted to Vijay Sehgal vide order dated 24.09.2020.

Notice of motion for 02.08.2021.

In the meanwhile, petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation on 18.05.2021 at 11:00 AM and in the event of his arrest, he shall be enlarged on interim bail, on his furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. However, petitioner shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

It is made clear that grant of interim order shall not be taken to be an expression on merits of the case in any manner. The case shall be considered on merits on the adjourned date."

Learned counsel for the petitioner re-asserted his stand that the petitioner would not claim any title qua the property in question and he never intended to transfer the plot in question

-3in favour of his son. He is ready to give statement before any forum. Vide order dated 02.08.2021, the petitioner was again directed to join investigation and co-operate with the investigation. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sunder, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and he is no more required for further investigation in the case. In view of statement made by learned State counsel, the interim orders dated 13.05.2021 and 02.08.2021 are made absolute. However, the petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required to do so and he shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Petition stands disposed of.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 01.10.2021 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No