High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42771/2018allowed

Rahul Dhalla v. State Of Punjab

2018-10-05Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-42771 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 05, 2018 Rahul Dhalla

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Pawan Sharda, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.183 dated 09.09.2018 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station GRP, Jalandhar. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Smt.Prabha Sahni. As per prosecution VINEET GULATI 2018.10.06 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh version, son of the complainant namely Rohit Sahni was married about two

CRM No.M-42771 of 2018 -2months back with one Chandni. As per the allegations, relationship between Rohit Sahni and Chandni became strained and Chandni called her parents and brother, who abused Rohit Sahni and feeling insulted and humiliated, Rohit Sahni committed suicide.

The present petitioner is stated to be young boy of 18 years. No specific role has been attributed to him except that he accompanied his parents. General allegations are levelled against him. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for investigation or custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from him. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 28.09.2018 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.

October 05, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.10.06 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh