← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/46832/2021allowed

Mukesh Kumar Alias Laddi v. State Of Punjab

2021-12-20Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258-A Date of decision:20.12.2021 Mukesh Kumar @ Laddi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN , J.

(ORAL) The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0203 dated 22.09.2021, registered under Sections 323, 452, 379-B, 427, 148 and 149 IPC, 1860 at Police Station Tibba, District Ludhiana. The operative part of the order dated 09.11.2021, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:- "Prayer in these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.0203 dated 22.09.2021 registered under Sections 323, 452, 379-B,

-2427, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Tibba, District Ludhiana.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the allegations regarding snatching of the amount and mobile phone are an afterthought as the parties are known to each other and it was a case of simple fight between the parties and both the parties have suffered injuries in the incident.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent - State while Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

List again on 20.12.2021.

In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days to join investigation and they shall be released on interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the following conditions:-

1. They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

2. They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

3. They shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case."

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in pursuance

-3to the order dated 09.11.2021, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation. Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2021 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Liberty is granted to the Investigating Officer to issue a notice in writing that the petitioners are still required for further investigation.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 20.12.2021 geeta Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No