Vicky v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:10.11.2020 Vicky

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Virk, DAG, Haryana Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

On 20.08.2020, the following order had been passed: "
 

            !

!"

!!#$ %&'()   *#


  $#  )   %+   
  $ ,#  *    - ##. .  . #. /  0   . . 

#1* 2 * 3  0.4#

/3 00   )$5#  !"

!

!!

/  # #.3    6++ %6 % !%+  

 . 

-2-   7  8  90: *):

;  

  $#0   -$ # # # 30 .   <##. 9  0  ; #.   #  <7 * #   3##   =# .. #  .     3#          #     #.      <#. 9 007    -%!

%% !!

  83    0         .#9 ##   )107  ;30  903 #  3)107    0#$ 6"&'<
< " Today, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and presently at least his custodial interrogation is not required.

That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, whatsoever, since the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this petition has in fact been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereafter, in the context of the FIR in question, he would be

-3given 7 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon him. 10.11.2020 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No