Jagpal Sharma v. State Of Haryana

-1CRM-M-34218 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34218 of 2020 Date of decision: 17.11.2020 Jagpal Sharma ......Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present:

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) Case taken up through video conferencing.

Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.344 dated 02.09.2020, registered under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') at Police Station Dabua, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to personal enmity between the petitioner and the complainant who are neighbours; the complainant is in the habit of making such false reports and in this regard the attention of the Court is drawn to Annexure P-3 a report from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Faridabad, with regard to another RAVINDER SINGH 2020.11.18 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-34218 of 2020 complaint by the complainant which was ultimately found false; no case under the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioner as the alleged caste related abuses were not hurled in the public view; there is no other criminal case in which the petitioner is involved and that under the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner has not only joined the investigation but has also fully co-operated with the investigating agency. Learned State counsel admits to the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and that he has joined the investigation. He further submits that the State does not require petitioner's custodial interrogation.

After considering the totality of the above facts especially the statement made by the learned State counsel that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required, the order of this Court dated 28.10.2020 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

Nothing observed herein-above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. (Deepak Sibal) November 17, 2020 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.11.18 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document