Lachhman Singh @ Sattu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 202 (3) Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31322 of 2016 Date of Decision : February 07, 2017 Lachhman Singh @ Sattu ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. D. R. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.89 dated 18.06.2016, registered under Sections 323, 324, 365, 506, 341, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana. While issuing notice of motion in this case on 06.09.2016, the petitioner was also granted ad-interim bail in terms of interim order passed in connected matter being Crl. Misc. No. M-28774 of 2016 - Paramjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and another, in which case, following interim order was passed by this Court on 29.08.2016 :- "This dispute has arisen because the complainant had allegedly eloped with the minor

daughter of petitioner No.1.

Counsel for the petitioners states that now elopement is over because the girl is with her parents and for their part, the petitioners would prefer to let bygones be bygones and consequently they would not pursue the FIR lodged by them against the complainant provided this case is also settled.

Learned Addl. AG Punjab also states that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in any case for the best interest of the minor daughter of petitioner No.1, it would be appropriate if this matter could be settled. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice, if the complainant is impleaded in this petition. Consequently, Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Malak, PS Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana is impleaded as respondent No.2. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. Let notice be issued to respondent No.2 for 28.9.2016.

Meanwhile, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer subject to the compliance of the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C." Learned State counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforequoted order, the petitioner has joined investigation. In view of the development, as noticed in the afore-quoted order, he is no longer required for questioning by the investigating agency.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 06.09.2016 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 07, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.