Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Ut Administration, Chandigarh
CRM-M-30739-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30739-2024 (O&M) Date of order: 17.07.2024 Gagandeep Singh ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of UT Administration, Chandigarh
...Respondent (s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 14.5.2024 Vigilance Bureau, UT, Chandigarh 7, 8 & 12 PC Act and 384 and 120-B IPC CRM-28240-2024 There was no order to file any affidavit of the petitioner. As such, the application is dismissed. The affidavit is not taken on record. CRM-M-30739-2024:
1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.
2.
Vide order dated 10.7.2024, this Court considering the nature and veracity of allegations as well as the custody, granted interim bail to the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner agreed to comply with other conditions mentioned in the said order.
3.
Today, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that they have complied with the conditions contained in the said interim order and have also supplied ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.07.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-30739-2024 their affidavits, declaring his assets as well as of his spouse to the investigator and also submits that they would not claim itself incriminatory or violative of their rights under Articles 20/21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act or any other law in force.
4.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5.
The petitioner was granted interim protection on 10.7.2024. Petitioner along with his spouse has voluntarily declared their assets with an undertaking that for declaring assets, they would not claim any incrimination or violation of their rights under Articles 20/21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act or any other law in force. Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and his pre-trial custody, which is about 2 months and cannot be said to be less, his further pre-trial custody may not be justified.
6.
Given above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 10.7.2024, is made absolute. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE July 17, 2024 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.07.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh