Sabbar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.20469 of 2021 ...1...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.20469 of 2021 Date of Decision: 11th January, 2022.

Sabbar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(Heard through Video-Conferencing) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, DAG, Haryana.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner herein has sought the relief of anticipatory bail in the criminal case arising out of the FIR bearing No.190 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Police Station Bichhore, District Nuh, under Section 5/13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015. Learned State counsel, on the instructions from SI Ashwani Kumar of the above-said Police Station, apprises the Court that till date, the petitioner has not joined in the investigation in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in the present petition. A perusal of the file reveals that initially, vide the order dated 21.05.2021 as passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the petitioner was extended the relief of interim bail with a direction to him to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. However, on 15.09.2021, learned State SEEMA SHARMA 2022.01.15 17:05 I attest to the accuracy of this order PHHC

CRM-M No.20469 of 2021 ...2...

counsel had apprised the Court that the petitioner had not joined in the investigation in compliance of the above-said order. Vide the order as passed on that day, he was granted one more opportunity to join in the investigation but as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, he has not done so. No cogent and plausible explanation has been put forth by his learned counsel for the same.

To add to it, it has categorically been mentioned in the order Annexure P-3 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mewat, on 24.11.2020 that the petitioner had failed to join in the investigation and to obey the order of the Court and was, thus, not co-operating in the investigation and resultantly, his application for seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed. Keeping in view all the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed accordingly.

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 11.01.2022.

seema Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes Whether Reportable?

No SEEMA SHARMA 2022.01.15 17:05 I attest to the accuracy of this order PHHC