Pratham Verma v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.11.2023 PRATHAM VERMA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate and Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 23.08.2023, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.173 dated 08.08.2023 registered for offence punishable under Sections 336, 506, 148, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Division No.8, District Jalandhar, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail. Inter alia contend that it is a case of no injury and the allegation against the petitioner is of having fired at the gate. Notice of motion On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant.

Adjourned to 16.11.2023.

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 shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C." 2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Gurdeep Singh 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 23.08.2023 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, non-

cooperating 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 16, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No