Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2020 203/2) CRM-M-32127 of 2020 Satnam Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

2) CRM-M-34844 of 2020 Kuljit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in both the petitions.

Mr. V.G.Jauhar, Sr. DAG, 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.

The petitioners in both these petitions having been admitted to interim bail vide orders dated 12.10.2020 and 30.10.2020, learned State counsel on instructions from SI Hardeep Singh, submits that both of them have joined investigation and in fact recovery of the weapons of offence have been effected, and presently at least their 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 in both the petitions, VIKAS CHANDER 2020.11.19 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

203/2) -2these petition have in fact been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.

However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, they would be given 7 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon them. Naturally, if the complainant is aggrieved in any manner, of lack of proper investigation, he/she would be always at liberty to avail of his/her remedy as per law.

17.11.2020 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:

No VIKAS CHANDER 2020.11.19 21:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document