Harjidner Singh @ Loharka And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25685-2024 Date of decision: August 13th, 2024 Harjinder Singh alias Loharka and another .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Garima Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case FIR No.10 dated 10.01.2024 registered under Sections 307, 34 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran. 2.

Vide order dated 21.05.2024, the petitioners had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "As per prosecution allegations, petitioners along with others, armed with dangs, gave abuses to the complainant, when he was installing cameras. Petitioners are alleged to have damaged the cameras whereas co-accused Mandeep is attributed to have fired two gunshots towards the complainant, one hitting on his left leg above knee and the other below left knee.

It is contended by learned counsel that no injury on the part of the petitioners is attributed. Learned counsel contends that the only attribution to the petitioners is to have damaged the CCTV camera. Learned counsel further contends that PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.08.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-25685-2024 -2petitioners are ready to join the investigation." 3.

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

Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Tarn Taran, has been filed in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

On a pointed query, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioners have not been attributed any injury in the occurrence in question.

6.

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

7.

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 482(2) BNSS/438(2) of the Cr.P.C. August 13th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.08.13 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh