Parveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision:16.9.2021 Parveen Kumar ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.
Present:
Mr.Rajesh Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ...
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral) Case heard via video conferencing.
On 28.6.2021, the following order had been passed by this court:- "Case heard by way of video conferencing.
By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, upon FIR no.302, dated 17.05.2021, having been registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonipat, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 61-4-20 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nobody having been named in the FIR, the petitioner has been roped in as an accused on the alleged disclosure statement made by a co-accued in custody and that the truck from which the liquor is alleged to have been recovered, does not belong to the petitioner.
Notice of motion is issued to the respondent-State, with Mr. Munish Sharma, learned AAG, Haryana, accepting notice at the asking of the court.
Upon query, he submits that as per his instructions received from Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh, the truck does not belong to the petitioner.
Adjourned to 02.08.2021.
Without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to join investigation within a week and upon his doing so, in case he is sought to be arrested, he would be admitted to interim bail, on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Illaqa Magistrate. He shall abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. If the arresting officer does not join the petitioner in investigation, he would appear before the learned Illaqa Magistrate immediately, who would then summon the arresting officer and direct him to join him in investigation."
Thereafter a detailed reply, dated 1.9.2021, has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State by the DSP, Sonipat.
After going through the contents thereof, especially paragraphs 3 to 5 (with paragraph 5 giving therein the role of the petitioner), I would see no reason to entertain this petition any further, even though learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argues that the only allegation against the petitioner is on the basis of a disclosure statement allegedly made in police custody by a co-accused.
The contents of the reply have not been reproduced in this order for the reason that if this court makes any comment on the merits of what has been stated in the reply, it may possibly affect the merits of the defence of the petitioner.
Yet, looking at the detailed contents of the reply, this petition is dismissed, with the interim order vacated.
However, nothing stated in this order or in the previous orders passed would affect the merits of the case, which would 'go' as per evidence gathered during investigation conducted and the evidence led before the trial court in the trial (if it comes to that stage). 16.9.2021 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) pk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No