Yatin Kumar Alias Jatin Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44235-2024 Date of decision: 25.10.2024 YATIN KUMAR ALIAS JATIN KUMAR ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Mr.Mani Makkar, Mr.Shubhag Garg, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

***** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.110 dated 17.07.2024 under Sections 115(2), 333, 190, 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. 2.

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 20.09.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:- "Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hardev Singh, has submitted that allegedly the petitioner along with his father called all the other co-accused to the place of occurrence, who came armed with lethal weapons and physically assaulted the complainant party; they ran away from the spot after snatching Rs.52,800/- from them.

POONAM RATHORE 2024.10.25 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-44235-2024 -2On a further query put to the learned State counsel, he on instructions has submitted that the petitioner is not previously involved in any other criminal case."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 20.09.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

4.

Status report by way of affidavit of Sh.Devinder Kumar, PPS Asst. Commissioner of Police, (North), Ludhiana, has been filed by learned State counsel on behalf of respondent No.1-State in Court today. The same is taken on record.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. Learned State counsel has also not disputed that the petitioner has not been attributed any specific injury on the opposite party except that he was part of the unlawful assembly which tress-passed into the shop of the complainant. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 20.09.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) October 25, 2024 JUDGE poonam Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No POONAM RATHORE 2024.10.25 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh