Nihal Singh @ Nanni v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.12.2023 NIHAL SINGH @ NANNI ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Satnam S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Mittoo, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 05.09.2023, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.193 dated 26.06.2020 registered for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC (added later on) at Police Station City Phagwara, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.
Inter-alia submits that the petitioner is alleged to be only accused to whom no injury or attack has been attributed. Apart therefrom, the parties are stated to have been arrived at compromise and copies of affidavits of alleged victims i.e. respondents No.2 & 3 are placed on record as Annexures P-4 & P-5.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.1/State.
On advance notice, Mr. Nitin Mittoo, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf respondents No.2 & 3 and admits the fact of there being a compromise between the parties. Adjourned to 11.12.2023.
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 Sunil Kumar 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 05.09.2023 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.
December 11, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No