Pushpender Singh Tanwar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-44929-2022 2023:PHHC:059462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44929-2022 (O&M) Date of order: 26.04.2023 Pushpender Singh Tanwar

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral) FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 12.8.2022 City Kharar, District SAS Nagar 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B IPC 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

In paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal history except a case under Section 498A, 323 IPC and 3 & 4 of Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.

Vide order dated 28.09.2022, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.

4.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has declared all his assets in terms of the previous order and his custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5.

The State's counsel opposes the bail.

ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.04.27 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-44929-2022 2023:PHHC:059462 6.

On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has also opposed continuation of interim bail on the ground that one Scorpio car, which was sold by the petitioner by forging the documents and also other necessary documents are yet to be recovered from the petitioner.

7.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection in case the petitioner is again directed to join investigation, however, he submits that the petitioner is working in Indian Navy and presently, he is posted in Andaman and Nicobar and as and when he returns, he will join investigation. REASONING:

8.

Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the victim or victim's family or the witnesses or that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, and the same is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order with a further direction that as and when the petitioner returns home he will appear before the Investigating Officer and join investigation. 9.

Accordingly, the present petition allowed and interim order is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE April 26, 2023 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.04.27 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment