Umarddin v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27250-2024 Date of decision: July 16th, 2024 Umarddin .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.225 dated 22.05.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 285, 307, 506, 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Tauru, District Nuh.

2.

Vide order dated 28.05.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner and even otherwise as per the contents of the FIR only danda blow is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. He contends that the co-accused to whom fire injury PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.16 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-27250-2024 -2is attributed has since been arrested. He further contends that the petitioner is 60 years of age and has no other criminal antecedents and is ready to join the investigation. Hence, seeks grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 28.05.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Digvijay, 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 28.05.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

July 16th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.07.16 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh