Ramanpreet Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-47899 of 2021 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47899 of 2021 Date of Decision:05.01.2022 Ramanpreet Singh and another ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via
!" "#$ %%&
'$
$() *
+
$
% $ $
$$ $
'
$$
,$ %
$
-
). #
$ %'&$$
'
$$ /$
$
'
$$ 0
$
$
% $ &
0 $%' %%&
$ $ %% $ -
$ $ $
$
$$,
-
). )# &$$
'
$$
CRM-M-47899 of 2021 -21' $
$$ $
$$
, $
2$ $'%2
$
$345 67/!3 $
"5 4" "#
$
$%
$$ 8$')"9 %% $ $
%
$
$ 4 :;4"4;4"3;#35;#3.;
< !;#" )1 $ 7
$ "<;<3;<. $ $
% $
$$ $ $$
$
$
% $$ %
$ '$$
$ 0
$ <( &
$ '& $%%'$ %
" , &' $ %%
%
0 $%' $ ' %'
$$
$
0 $%'
'$
%$ $ $ 67
$
$$ $
$
%$ 2 $ /$
$ /
$ $
$$ ,
$ $ %
$$$ ' $
$$
%
$ $ '$
% '%
% $
$$ = 0 '$ $ $$$ $ %
% $
$$
$$ $& %
%
$
$$
%
$$ $ ' $ 67 % $
$$ %$ $$ $ '$ %
$ $8
$
$ $$ $$
$%'% &$ $
% 0
$ $
$ $& $ $ $ ' % $'
$
$$ $ %%
$
$ > &% % &
$
%'$$
$$
%& %%
$ $$ -$ $
$
%
$""#"" "# 7$
% $$$$ $ $ $
$ $
$$ ?
CRM-M-47899 of 2021 -3Thereafter, on December 22, 2021 the following order had been passed by this court:- "Case heard via video conferencing.
A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, dated 21.12.2021, which is ordered to be taken on record. A copy thereof be given to learned counsel for the petitioners who is appearing through video conferencing.
It being a petition seeking anticipatory bail, with counsel for the petitioner still to go through the reply filed, adjourned to 30.12.0221, since there is no interim order passed in favour of the petitioners." Pursuant thereto, a reply has been filed by the SSP, Khanna, in which, other giving the facts of the case as per the FIR, it has been stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 that even as per the CCTV footage relied upon by the petitioners, they were not found to be present in the CCTV footage at all which pertains to the premises of one M/s Neelkanth Enterprises; and that in fact the mother of the first petitioner as also the wives of both the petitioners were issued notices under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
, with them having in fact produced the CCTV footage thereafter, and with them having admitted that neither of the petitioners is visible in the said footage, though one Neel Kamal Singh @ Billa (who is also stated to be an accused as per the affidavit) is seen in that footage. Though learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to file a counter to the said affidavit, however I would see no reason to allow that as, vide this petition, the petitioners seek to be admitted to anticipatory bail and in view of what has been contended in the affidavit by the SSP himself, this petition is dismissed.
CRM-M-47899 of 2021 -4It is made clear that all observations made in any order passed in this petition are in the context of a petition filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., with it having dismissed seeing the role of the petitioners as per the FIR, and with the preliminary defence taken by them not having been found to be true as per the SSP.
However, naturally, investigation would continue in the matter regardless of any observations made in the context of this petition, as would any trial that ensues thereafter.
January 05, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No