Mohan Lal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.10.2023 MOHAN LAL ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Abhishek Sindhwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 31st of July, 2023, the following order was passed :-

    

 ! 
"


#  $ %& 
'

!'

' !    (& %  ) *# +& *   , - .(    & 

/  #   . ((  $ -
   



  

          



  

          

       !"

#$

%&#$ '   () *

%& %

*%+ % ' * 



 

%  '!,-,,..,.,/0.1+

 *



 " *





  

 ' !+  ("( 

" 2.23 4*

 !011

010* %  *+ +** 



 * 

*5   *%

  +**





 

'

    ("  6



  '

   



 

 23,1-,--%  '!,-,,733008*

'

  ' +**4*

 !/0-

/02 + *+  

"!2.23 32,0-,3- +**   *

*5  *

%      * *



*

+ '*

'*4*

 !

%

4 !

%  *9

:

;)' 

* 

9

:

;)' *

%   *  +*    

 

  '  +*  

% *

*

%  %   *+

*5  

 *5  % '

4*

 !

% +**    + ' 

  '

 **



*

  *  ("

 '  

 

       /-,  <   =  ' () ;

/-, '



  " + *

+   '*   *"

   '*9 '

'

  *   > +

  4*   "   >*+

 

 *  

   

      '     ("  ! -,,../2-3/8/     '  

  ;$    





 "

  !3.7$ .0;   '

?

&

/   1 2$3 4(# +2# )   &&  &

 .(/

/   -%  , 0 

/( () 0

   0 0   
 



  2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Ram Mehar submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 31.07.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.

4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

7.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

October 18, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No