Vikram Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(1) Crl. Misc. No.M-27931 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 26, 2017 Vikram Singh ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

(2) Crl. Misc. No.M-29921 of 2017 (O&M) Chiranji ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Prabhjeet Singh Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Deepak Grewal, D.A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.16 dated 26.01.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Narnaul District Mohindergarh.

-2Heard.

Learned State counsel submits that petitioners have joined the investigation, which is still in progress. As per report of Inspector General of Police dated 23.10.2017, forest officer has already compounded the matter and got deposited the fine from Chiranji, hence, no further action under the Forest Act is required.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that police has not effected the recovery of the stolen trees and the implements used to cut trees, from the petitioners. Initially, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanina on investigation gave report that petitioners have not cut the trees. Now, Inspector General of Police, Rewari has also directed that no further action is to be taken against the petitioners. The matter is stated to have been compounded by the forest officer. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of further investigation, as such, there is no reason to accept the contention of learned counsel for the complainant.

In view of submission of learned State counsel but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both these petitions are allowed. Order dated 02.08.2017 passed in CRM-M-27931-2017 and order dated 18.08.

-3Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

(iv) that the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court, which the trial Court will decide on the basis of evidence collected during investigation.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) October 26, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No