Sukhwinder Singh And ANR. v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 13.09.2018 Sukwinder Singh and another ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. J.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the complainant.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR DDR No.03 dated 10.06.2017 recorded in FIR No.212 dated 08.06.2017 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

The operative part of the order dated 11.10.2017, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioners, is reproduced as under:-

"....Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the statement of petitioner No.1 - Sukhwinder Singh, the FIR No.212 dated 08.06.2017 was recorded immediately after the occurrence on 08.06.2017 itself whereas the cross-version was recorded on 10.06.2017. It is further submitted that as per the MLRs of petitioner No.1 - Sukhwinder Singh and petitioner No.2 - Ashok, they have also received gun shot injuries in the incident and on the basis of the same, the aforesaid FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered against the accused persons.

Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the cross-version has been registered on the statement of Hardial @ Dayala and as per the medico legal report of Hardial @ Dayala, the injuries were stated to be blunt in nature. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that this is a case of version and cross-version, therefore, it is to be seen only during the course of trial which party was aggressor and which party acted in defence. Notice of motion for 07.12.2017...."

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation, in pursuance to the order dated 11.10.2017 and the subsequent orders passed on the request of counsel for the State, directing the petitioners to re-join the investigation and the weapon of offence has already been recovered. Counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Karam Singh, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioners are no more required for further investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already been acquitted in other FIRs. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 11.10.2017 is

made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 13.09.2018 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No