Rahul v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:011113 CRM-M-38106-2023 Date of decision: January 29th, 2024 Rahul .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Rajoria, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.81 dated 26.05.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the IPC (Section 326 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Ludhiana. 2.

Vide order dated 04.08.2023, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, submits that a perusal of the same clearly reveals that neither was the petitioner named therein nor any injury attributed to him, however, after almost 02 weeks of the occurrence in question, he came to be nominated as an accused on the supplementary statement made by one of the injured Sandeep Kaur. He submits that even in the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.29 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-M-38106-2023 -2supplementary statement so recorded, no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 04.08.2023, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurpreet Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.08.2023, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

January 29th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.29 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh