Dilpreet Singh @ Babbal v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 53280 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.02.2022 Dilpreet Singh @ Babbal .......... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate for the complainant. (Through Video Conferencing) **** SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner, by filing the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 0188 of 29.10.2021, which was registered against him, at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, constituting therein offences under Sections 323, 308, & 506 of the IPC. 2.

This Court, through an order made on 20.12.2021, had granted ad interim bail to the bail applicant / petitioner. 3.

Learned State Counsel, on instructions, meted to him, by ASI Gurpreet Singh, Investigating Officer (IO), submits that the bail applicant - petitioner, has participated in the relevant investigations, and, he is rendering his fullest cooperation to the IO concerned, and, that no recovery is yet to be effected, at the instance of the bail applicant, to the IO concerned, as, the injuries inflicted upon the victim, were not through user of any incriminatory weapon of offence, rather, is in sequel to kick and fist blows, becoming delivered upon the victim, by the petitioner. He thus, DINESH KUMAR 2022.02.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M No. 53280 of 2021 (O&M) -2submits that the petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and, in case, his further cooperation is required, thereupon, his cooperation shall be elicited, by the IO concerned, through a written Hukamnama, being served upon him.

4.

Also, the learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for complainant, submit that a compromise has been drawn, inter se, the accused - petitioner and the complainant.

5.

In the face of above, this Court does not deem it fit to order for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as, thereupon, his personal liberty would become unnecessarily curtailed and fettered. 6.

Consequently, this Court is constrained to make absolute the order made by this Court on 20.12.2021. However, the making of absolute of the afore order shall be subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer concerned, is directed to forthwith ensure the furnishing before him, by the bailapplicants, of personal and surety bonds, in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. 7.

Disposed of.

February 10, 2022 ( SURESHWAR THAKUR ) 'dk kamra'

JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2022.02.10 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document