Nakul Dhawan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:007029 CRM-M-31888-2023 Date of decision: January 19th, 2024 Nakul Dhawan .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.

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.110 dated 06.03.2023 under Sections 302, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Section 379-B of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Parao, District Ambala.

2.

Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that as per the allegations in the FIR, three accused persons Nikhil Dhawan, Ansul and Ashok had initially altercation with someone at 03.00 P.M., wherein the victim namely, Monu Ram intervened and thereafter in order take revenge the three persons attacked Monu Ram, who died of knife blow given by Nikhil Dhawan. He submits that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he was even present at the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.19 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-M-31888-2023 -2spot in both the occurrences, but has been falsely implicated on the basis of statement made by the wife of the deceased who stated that the petitioner was also involved in this occurrence."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 06.07.2023, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. She 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 06.07.2023 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

January 19th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.19 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh