Monu Alias Futta v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 211/2 CRM-M-17071-2025 Date of decision: May 15th, 2025 Monu alias Futta (Khuta) .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.401 dated 11.07.2024 registered under Sections 103(1), 61 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of The Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Hansi.

2.

Vide order dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the case of the prosecution hinges on eyewitness account. The petitioner, even as per the case of the prosecution, was not one of the alleged assassins nor was he present with the co-accused when the deceased was gunned down. Learned counsel has asserted that that only allegation levelled against the petitioner is of having harboured the prime accused and that too, ten days prior to the occurrence in question. Learned counsel has contended that the accused could have been harboured only after the crime had been committed and not prior PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-17071-2025 -2thereto, and that too, many days before the actual occurrence.

On a pointed query as to whether the petitioner was alleged to be a conspirator to the murder in question, learned counsel has replied in the negative. It has still further been contended that identically placed co-accused Sikender has since been extended the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi, District Hisar, has been filed in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 27.03.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 15th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh