Ram Dulari @ Annu Dhaiya v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 07.11.2023 RAM DULARI @ ANNU DAHIYA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 21.08.2023, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending her arrest in FIR No.80 dated 20.04.2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Pillukhera, District Jind, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the matter already stands compromised and the parties are before this Court in CRMM-40948-2025, wherein quashing of the FIR have sought on the basis of compromise.

Notice of motion, returnable for 07.11.2023.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to her furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer/Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. She shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C." 2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from PSI Amit submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 21.08.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the 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. 5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to

witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

November 07, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No