Sandeep Kumar And Another v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16218 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.02.2021 Sandeep Kumar and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

2) CRM-M-10467 of 2020 Abhishek Kumar @ Abhi Bangar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioners in sr. no.1.

None for the petitioner in sr. no.2.

Mr. S.S. Deol, DAG, Punjab Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the complainant. Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by video conferencing.




 








  

   !"


#




$

%
%

&
 '


()
' 

*

* +
  


 '


,





  
# 




' ''
-




.


#
#



'#


 

/)
0 1

#





'












2,
3

#






'
'



 

4*

  



*
'
#,
3




#






.








-2-


'#
-$ 
0


5,

,
5









#










'

#
 



  
 



#
''




'

%

#

'



63,
,
7 

%

#

' #
 


4*


*
'
#



 ,

/.

,8,  ,

3


# #


'






  
 
.
*  




*





  

 



  #

.'




  '





*  


',
"


  
 
.
*  


 
9

 
'#%



' 



-'


18:

;
,0,,< Similarly, on June 25, 2020, the following order had been passed in CRM-M-16218 of 2020:- "
$



*
' ',



4 '

# ,



,
2*
2
7 
/,
/2
0.
'' 
 '

 





-  ,



6
# 
.

,8,  ,




3


# 
.'




  =
.
*  


 
'
%


*  
'%



%





' 
*

-'


18
:

;
,0,



*





63
4, 
 
>, ,  
 

-'


1 1
1

>
 8

 +

3
0

8 

0'
-  
#

0'
## 
 
7 '

 

%
 




 #
 ' %




  '





/ 


',

-3-
Today, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioners in these two petitions have joined investigation and presently at least their custodial interrogation is not required, with Mr. Lath, learned counsel for the complainant (in both the cases), however submitting that the role of one of the petitioners, Abhishek Kumar @ Abhi Bangar, is different to the other and therefore he does not deserve to be admitted to bail. Having considered the matter, this court is not making any comment whatsoever on merits either for or against the petitioners. It is to be noticed that once the investigating agency itself states that the custodial interrogation of an accused is not required, then even in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649, a court would naturally not be justified in directing arrest of such an accused.

Consequently, on the aforesaid statement of the learned State counsel, these petition have in fact been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such (even though counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M10467 of 2020 is not present). However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, they would be given 10 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon them. Naturally, if the complainant is aggrieved in any manner, of lack of proper investigation, he/she would be always at liberty to avail of his/her remedy as per law.

-4-
A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matter too.

16.02.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No