Karamjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

202-A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.38896 of 2020 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 13.01.2021 Karamjit Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. G.S. Pannu, Advocate for the complainant ..

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):

Heard through video conferencing.

On 25.11.2020, the following order was passed: "This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0131 dated 10.10.2020 under Sections 452, 323, 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Dehlon, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he had pulled the beard of the complainant. He has referred to the order passed in CRM-M No.37426 of 2020 dated 12.11.2020 granting interim anticipatory bail to the co-accused. Notice of motion.

CRM-M No.38896 of 2020 -2On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

List on 13.01.2021.

To be heard with CRM-M No.37426 of 2020.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join investigation before the Investigating Officer and would come present as and when called for. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing adequate surety and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions as specified in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has since joined investigation and has co-operated with the investigating agency.

Mr. G.S. Pannu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. He would contend that the entire incident has been captured on video and the petitioner can be seen causing injuries to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant is, however, not in a position to deny that the injuries are simple in nature and the fact that though the allegations in the FIR qua the petitioner is only regarding pulling the beard of the complainant, however, the relevant section qua the same has not been invoked against the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, has stated that the petitioner has since joined the investigation and has fully cooperated in the matter and is not required any further.

CRM-M No.38896 of 2020 -3In view of the above, the order dated 25.11.2020 is made absolute. The petitioner shall, however, join investigation as and when called. The petitioner shall also abide by all the terms and conditions as specified under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Disposed off, accordingly.

(ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 13.01.2021 parkash NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO