Sunil Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38307-2024 Date of decision: November 14th, 2024 Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Sukhveer Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in case FIR No.25 dated 03.02.2024 under Section 13 (3) of The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, registered at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak. 2.

Vide order dated 08.08.2024, 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, inter alia, contends that a perusal of the FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, clearly reveals that the petitioner has not been named therein nor has any suspicion been raised qua his involvement in the crime in question; he came to be nominated as an accused on the third disclosure statement of co-accused Mohammad Taksim, who merely stated that buffalo and cow meat had PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.11.14 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-38307-2024 -2been loaded into the vehicle by the petitioner. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to whether the vehicle in question is registered in the name of the petitioner, he has replied in the negative. On a further query put to the learned counsel as to whether he is involved in any other criminal case, he has replied in the negative qua that also."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 08.08.2024, 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. She, 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 08.08.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

November 14th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.11.14 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh