Abhishek Thakur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25717-2024 Date of decision: September 24th, 2024 Abhishek Thakur .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. P.P.S. Duggall, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.35 dated 06.05.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC (Section 326 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Dhakoli, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). 2.

Vide order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel inter alia contends that as per the case of the complainant himself, the alleged occurrence took place on 02.05.2023; no doubt the injured/complainant was admitted in the hospital soon thereafter, but it was also a matter of record that the police went not once but a couple of times to get the statement of the complainant recorded, however, despite being declared fit by the doctor, he chose not to get his statement recorded and it was only on 06.05.2023 i.e. three days later, on being discharged, he got the FIR in question, (which stands reproduced in the body of the petition), registered. Learned counsel submits that it is thus, evident that the complainant has come out with a false and an embroidered version. He further PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.24 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-25717-2024 -2submits that even assuming that the petitioner was indeed present, the injury attributed to him is with a Datar and was opined to be simple in nature."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 21.05.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.

September 24th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.09.24 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh