High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4637/2017allowed

Sukh Devi & ANR v. State Of Haryana

2017-03-17Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2017 1.

CRM-M-4637-2017 Sukh Devi and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent 2.

CRM-M-5897-2017 Deepak Kumar and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent AND 3.

Gurvinder Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioners in CRM-M-4637-2017 and CRM-M-58972017. Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-7380-2017.

Mr. B.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana.

INDERJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

CRM-M-4637-2017, filed by petitioners-Sukh Devi and Jasver Kumar, CRM-M-5897-2017, filed by petitioners-Deepak Kumar and Tilak Raj and CRM-M-7380-2017, filed by petitioner-Gurvinder Singh, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.02 dated 04.01.2017, registered at Police Station Saha, District Ambala, under Sections 120-B, 205, 209, 217, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Notice of motion has been issued in all these petitions. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested these petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 got registered by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala. The main allegation against the petitioners are that they have shown another vehicle to get the claim.

In pursuance of the interim orders dated 13.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-4637-2017, dated 22.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-5897-2017 and 03.03.2017 passed in CRM-M-7380-2017 by this Court, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Moreover, the case is based on documentary evidence.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. Therefore, finding merits in all these petitions, the same are allowed. The orders dated 13.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-4637-2017, dated 22.02.2017 passed in CRM-M-5897-2017 and 03.03.2017 passed in CRM-M-7380-2017 by this Court, granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Note: