High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39408/2023disposed of

Raj Jeet Singh Alias Raj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-05-14Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain3 pages

::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 298-2 Date of decision : 14.05.2024 Raj Jeet Singh @ Raj Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

*** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 23.08.2023 the following order was passed:- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.51 dated 08.07.2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bhiani Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

Notice of motion was issued on 11.08.2023.

Counsel for the State prays for yet another opportunity to file status report.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 07.11.2023. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner

::2::

shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. " Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Kuldip Raj has stated that pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2023 the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. In view of above, the interim order dated 23.08.2023 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting 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. 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.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

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, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. Petition stands disposed off.

::3::

Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 14.05.2024 Satyawan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable :