Lovepreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : August 07, 2024 Lovepreet Singh ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present :

None for the petitioner Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab KULDEEP TIWARI,J. (ORAL) 1.

Status report dated 6.8.2024, by way of affidavit of Sh. Jasbinder Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana is filed today in Court by the learned State counsel, and the same is taken on record.

2.

On 30.5.2024, this Court had passed the hereinafter extracted order, upon the instant petition:- "1.

Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.39 dated 25.04.2024, under Sections 381, 407 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Koom Kalan, Ludhiana.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, whereas, neither he committed any theft nor committed any offence, as alleged. In fact, the main allegations are against co-accused Rohit Sharma, who was employed by the complainant to manage accounts of his company and to get loaded/unloaded the iron bars. The petitioner, being merely a truck driver, did not have any knowledge about the quantity of goods loaded in his truck and he had properly transported the goods loaded in his truck,without any mala fide intent.

3.

Notice of motion for 07.08.2024.

4.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab.

5.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and to appear before the investigating agency, as and when called upon to do so. In the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

3.

Today, the learned State counsel has, on instructions imparted to him by the official concerned, stated that pursuant to the making of the hereinabove extracted order, the petitioner(s) had

joined investigation and he is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

4.

In view of the above, the hereinabove extracted interim order dated 30.5.2024, is hereby made absolute, subject to the hereinafter extracted conditions:- "(i) the petitioner(s) shall not commit an offence similar to the present offence;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required."

5.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting petitioner(s) indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 6.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. ( KULDEEP TIWARI ) August 07, 2024 JUDGE 'tiwana'

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether Reportable ?

Yes/No