Harjit Singh v. State Of Punjab




    

 
    

!



"#$ $%&'&() * 

"+,&#-&(./ $#&#&($+ 0$+'1'

-#"#$1(,"2  $'3(4$(#



    



   







 



  !



"  #

   





 $   %

 

 !"

 #$%&$#'()((   !   

 % &  '

(  $  % &  '

) 

 #*$+,()#'()(, ( )



! *+, -

./0
1

.2.
   

 03
4

 5 

 (! 3 4 
6'6 

 +5  



 

9     %

.

 ..

.

.2.
 !

 5 

: ..

.

.2.
 "
 #%+-$$#'()(, Allowed as prayed for.

Application stands disposed of.

 #*$+,()#'()(, The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.273 dated 14.11.2021, registered under Section 3(1) (S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is an employee of one Jassa Singh with whom the petitioner is having a civil dispute. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the present allegations, which have been alleged by the petitioner is under the influence of said Jassa Singh and in fact no such act, as being described by the petitioner, has taken place. Learned counsel submits that further, the allegations being attributed to the petitioner so as to violate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are yet to be proved during the trial and as the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate, therefore, he be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent6State. Learned State counsel submits that the allegations which have come against the petitioner are serious and non6bailable. Learned State counsel submits that as of now, the allegations, are only in the FIR and are yet to be substantiated during the

investigation.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is facing other proceedings as well. Further argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is that prior to the registration of the present FIR, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, which prima facie substantiated the allegations. Factum that the petitioner is working as an employee with Jassa Singh, with whom the petitioner has a civil dispute, is not denied. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

Keeping in view the various facts such as the civil dispute going on between the petitioner and one Jassa Singh, who is a retired Inspector from the Punjab Police, and the petitioner is employee with said Jassa Singh, coupled with the fact that the allegations alleged against the petitioner are yet to be substantiated during the investigation, the purpose of investigation can be achieved in case the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the same as nothing is to be recovered from him.

As the petitioner has undertaken to join the investigation and co6operate with the same, he has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Petitioner is directed to join the investigation forthwith. In the event of their arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction subject to the following conditions:

i) That he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.

ii) That he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing the said facts to the Court or to any police officer.

iii)That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

iv) That he shall abide by all the conditions as enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Adjourned to 17.02.2022.

It is, however, made clear that after the petitioner join the investigation, in case any incriminating material comes against the petitioner, the respondent6State will be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking the custody of the petitioner in case, the same is needed."

9

  $         %  + ;

   %   5  !      <    

+ $ !  ..

.

.2.



% !  % !

;$  ! !

  

 10'3.4 5 

;     $     

+   

  %    !

+ 

 

 <  !      $ !  !

   5  

 

+ %   $ 





% !  $ %

  5  &





%  $ $ !  )

$ % $ $ %  

     !

 $

(   

"+%/ *6

 - -- kanchan   

√ Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No √ Whether reportable?

Yes/No