Pankaj Sharma And ANR v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.10.2023 PANKAJ SHARMA AND ANR ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate & Ms. Mumtaz Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the complainant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 7th of August, 2023, the following order was passed :- 
 


 

 

              

                 

  !! !    "! #  "$  !   %&  %    &" 
              '   (   )* +,-"
                      *   - '

  *        ' 

"! ! !  .-.-

""& % ""& $

! ! *   & ! !

 

*   /  0  

       .#1 0  2+)

3  4

                

  

     5    .    6  +'

4

     

  

     *       

*     *  *      3 

  *     '  '  * *      .-.-!! &-! !

 7 

 

'-*       

 * *   8        +8   & ! !
     *4        ' 

            *   8      

 + /

5
'  /

          8   '        
'    +5/

  6            

 4     '  9!:

;- <9 :  6             *0   *' '         

 4 7    = 9 :  6                     *0 *   *    7 4    

      *  *     

      

= 9 :  6                ' 
  4 

 *  

  >        

  ,

     



  
   





  
!


" 

!

  

#   
  




  
   





  

 #

"

!

  
$"  
 






The petitioners are again directed to appear before the

investigating officer on 08.08.2023 (at 11.00 AM) and on any other date as and when their presence is required. On their appearance the I.O. shall release them on bail to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. In case the petitioners do not appear before the investigating officer in the aforesaid manner the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed."

2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from P/SI Abhishek Singh submits that the petitioners have already joined investigation and are no more required for custodial interrogation. 3.

Apart therefrom counsels for the parties i.e. the petitioners as well as complainant are ad idem that the matter already stands compromised.

4.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 7th of August, 2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 5.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioners indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioners.

7.

The petitioners shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts

made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioners in case the occasion arises.

8.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 9.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

October 16, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No