Sukhdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1201IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.12.2020 Sukhdeep Singh ......Petitioner vs.

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

Present:

Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

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.0126 dated 14.10.2020 registered under Sections 457, 354 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the complainant and after giving her beatings and threatening her husband molested her and then while escaping injured himself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

-2had been given injuries by the complainant party; his medical record reflects number of serious injuries on the petitioner; only as a counter blast the complainant lodged the present FIR against the petitioner; there is no other criminal case in which the petitioner is involved and 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 petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; 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 and that his custodial interrogation is not required.

Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated or not would be debated during the course of trial. However, there is version and crossversion by both sides with medical record showing injuries on the petitioner; the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and 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 and as per learned State counsel his custodial interrogation is not required.

After considering the totality of the above facts especially the statement made by the learned State counsel that since he had joined the investigation his custodial interrogation is not required, the order of this Court dated 02.11.2020 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

-3Nothing observed herein-above shall be considered to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. (Deepak Sibal) December 16, 2020 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No