Sukhvinder Singh Khera And ANR v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.12.2020 Col. (Retd.) Sukhvinder Singh Khera and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amar Ashok Pathak, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent no.2. 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.
On November 10, 2020, the following order had been passed: "
! ! "#$
%& '( '
('(' ) * + , **-
* .'/ .(' #) * (' 0 "#$
-2- 1 22 ) 3) *
$ 4 '' '''5 -
+ * 6 ,7 )8 1
$++%/4%' ('(' ( $ 4 '' '''5
9
: ; 22
$ 4 '' '''5
: ; 22 $ . '' '''5
8
8 <
5#<+ = * .%4:(; ) #
8
#<+
8 (( ( ('('
-3- 2
> Today, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioners in this petition have joined investigation 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 petitioners, this petition has in fact been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, he 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, including by approaching the SSP, Mohali, for redressal of his grievance.
Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the complainant, has very vehemently tried to argue (with a disruption in his video/audio connection), that in fact the police is favouring the petitioners, who had duped the complainant and others and consequently they do not deserve to be admitted to bail.
Having considered that argument, it is to be observed by this court that this is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking the concession of anticipatory bail, with them having been admitted to interim bail vide the
-4order dated November 10, 2020, on the arguments made by their counsel on that date and the reason given by this court thereupon. Today learned counsel for the State has stated (on instructions) that the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, obviously therefore, this court would not direct in this petition at least that they be arrested and consequently, in fact the interim order passed on November 10, 2020, has not been made absolute with the petition itself having been disposed of as it having been rendered infructuous on that statement made, the apprehension of the petitioners of them being arrested having been allayed by the investigating agency itself.
Naturally, if the complainant or any other person is aggrieved of improper investigation by the police, the remedy against that is always available to them and consequently, if the SSP, Mohali, is approached by the complainant or any other such person who is aggrieved of any inaction on behalf of the police, the SSP would go into such grievance in detail after hearing both sides, and then come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners are actually guilty (as per investigating agency) of the commission of any cognizable offence, or not, and an order shall be passed by the SSP, Mohali accordingly, within a very reasonable time of him having been approached by any person so aggrieved. 22.12.
No