Jagdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37028-2024 Date of decision: 09.01.2025 JAGDEEP SINGH ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr.S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Rana, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

***** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.79 dated 29.03.2022 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 458, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala. 2.

On 02.08.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that it is a matter of record that this Court vide order dated 18.07.2023 had extended the concession of interim bail to the petitioner in the present FIR, however, it was not pressed as it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was involved in one other case for an offence under Section 326 of the IPC etc. Subsequently, in the other criminal case, which was POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.09 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-37028-2024 -2registered against him, he was extended the concession of anticipatory bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 25.07.2024 (Annexure P-2). It has been submitted that even otherwise, the only role attributed to him in the present case is of having held the injured by his arms when the co-accused allegedly inflicted injury on him."

3.

Thereafter, on the last date of hearing i.e. on 20.09.2024, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 20.09.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, 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 20.09.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) January 09, 2025 JUDGE poonam Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2025.01.09 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh