Saikul v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc. No. M-5836 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 204 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-5836 of 2017 Date of Decision : April 19, 2017 Saikul ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 299 dated 24.10.2016, registered under Section 174-A IPC, at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat.

The petitioner faced trial in FIR No. 188 dated 29.07.2009, registered under Sections 379, 411, 188, 120-B IPC and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, at Police Station Tauru. He initially appeared before the trial court, but due to his non-appearance on later dates, on 22.01.2016, was declared a proclaimed person. He surrendered before the trial court on 30.11.2016 and again faced trial, in which, on the basis of his confession, he was convicted and sentenced, which he has already Monika 2017.04.19 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-5836 of 2017 undergone.

For having been declared as a proclaimed person, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC, in which, in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, on his joining investigation, he has been admitted to bail.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Prahlad Singh, submits that the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for questioning by the investigating agency.

Considering the above facts, as also the submission made on behalf of learned State counsel, the petition is allowed and order dated 22.02.2017 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed herein above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion by this court on the merits of the case. If the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal act or misusing the concession of bail granted by this Court, it would be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail granted through this order by filing an appropriate application before the competent Court/this Court. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE April 19, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

Monika 2017.04.19 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document