Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.11.2020 Harwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Hitan Nehra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
On September 28, 2020, the following order had been passed: "
! !
"
#
$ # % !
! ! &&
#
'( ")
#
*+
,*+ -
-
* !
% & . (' /
!
0 1 & 2
3
(
* .
2 "4+
( ( 5 ! &
&
5& 6
&
- ! 7 5 &
5 & ! 8 !5 !
5
&
-2- &
- 6 #
..:
" ;
! 6 &
&
&
1 & 2
( )
!5
5 & ! &&
&
;
!
5
5
& ;
! !
! 8
! 18-! 6 & 5
#
, * + ) ") ! !
;
!
5
8 -! && 5 5 &&
!
& ;
& !
&
.
;
<
& 5 - !7
5!= > Though a reply of the mining officer has been filed, however, today, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner in this petition has joined investigation on 01.10.2020, and there being no recovery effected from him, with the entire material already seized by the police earlier, presently at least his custodial interrogation is not required. That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, whatsoever, since the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this petition has in fact
-3been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, he would be given 7 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon him. 16.11.2020 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:
No