Raj Kumar v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1.

Criminal Misc. No.M- 32686 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: November 14 , 2017.

Raj Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2.

Criminal Misc. No. M- 33561 of 2017(O&M).

Mukesh Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate and Mr. Paramjit Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-32686 of 2017 (Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Misc. No.M-33561 of 2017 (Mukesh Kumar v. State of Punjab). For the sake of convenience, the facts are

-2extracted from CRM No.M-32686 of 2017.

Prayer in both these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.119 dated 18.08.2017 under Sections 323/354/506 IPC registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It is submitted that the dispute in question has arisen between the petitioner - Mukesh Kumar and the complainant due to an altercation regarding a parking space in the area. The petitioner - Raj Kumar is the father of Mukesh Kumar. Moreover the matter, it is submitted, has been amicably resolved between the parties during the pendency of these proceedings. Criminal Misc. No.M-38478 of 2017 has been filed for quashing of the abovementioned FIR. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements in the abovesaid proceedings.

The petitioners, it is submitted, have joined investigation pursuant to order dated 02.11.2017. Therefore, it is prayed that these petitions be allowed. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Surjit Singh, submits that the petitioners have joined investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioners, it is verified, are not involved in any other case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the Court, if released on bail. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above but without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both

-3these petitions are allowed. Consequently, order dated 02.11.2017 is made absolute.

( LISA GILL ) November 14 , 2017.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No