Neeraj Sharma @ Neeraj Pandit v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.35272 of 2017 and Criminal Misc. No.M-39841 of 2017 Date of decision:9.11.2017 Neeraj Sharma alias Neeraj Pandit

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Harsharan Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

Cr. Misc. No.35272 of 2017:

For the reasons mentioned in the criminal miscellaneous application, the same is allowed and the main petition i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-39841 of 2017, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, is restored to its original number.

The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-39841 of 2017:

The petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.92 dated 8.9.2015 registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 and 379 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.11.10 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-39841 of 2017 [2] Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the first bail petition of the present petitioner has already been dismissed by this Court on merit. From the record, I find that Neeraj Sharma alias Neeraj Pandit was stated to be armed with a revolver and injuries have been attributed to him. It is also in the FIR that after causing the injuries, they also took with them the licensed revolver of the complainant after snatching the same from him. The present petitioner is required for custodial interrogation as has been held in the earlier order dated 13.7.2016 passed by this Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that no changed circumstances have been shown after the dismissal of the first bail petition by this Court. Otherwise also, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to him. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

November 9, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.11.10 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh