Chatann Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-24434-2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24434-2021 Date of Decision: November 08, 2021 Chatann Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, D.A.G. Punjab.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral) By this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail', upon FIR No. 46 having been registered at Police Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala, on 19.03.2021, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 326 IPC added later on).

The petitioner having been admitted to interim bail vide an order 24.08.2021, the matter had also been referred to mediation; but with the report of the learned mediator, dated 21.10.2021, stating that the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.

SACHIN MEHTA 2021.11.11 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-24434-2021 -2Consequently, on 26.10.2021, the following order was recorded by this court (co-ordinate bench):- "Ld. State Counsel submits that although the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he is not cooperative inasmuch as the offending weapon used by him is yet to be recovered.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will cooperate in the investigation, for which one more opportunity is sought for.

3.

On his request, adjourned to 08.11.2021.

4.

Interim order to continue in the meantime."

Today, learned State counsel submits on instructions from ASI Vikram Singh, that the petitioner having got recovered the weapon (allegedly used in the commission of the offence), his custodial interrogation is not required.

That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, this petition has actually been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

However, if the petitioner's custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, he would be given 10 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon him. Naturally, if the complainant is aggrieved in any manner, of lack of proper investigation, he would be always at liberty to avail of his remedy as per law.

November 08, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) Sachin M JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2021.11.11 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh