Tarun Kumar v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 04.12.2024 Tarun Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. T.S.Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.101 dated 27.08.2024 under Sections 109, 125, 324(4), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda.

2.

On 12.09.2024, while issuing notice of motion ,this Court had notice the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that purportedly a secret information was received that two groups of people on account of some previous enmity had entered into an altercation leading to cross firing between them. Learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the FIR reveals that although the other co-accused were

-2named therein and even some of the individuals from the opposite side were named, however, the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the secret information received nor was there any specific allegation levelled against the unknown persons, who were accompanying the other coaccused, with respect to any injury that they may have inflicted upon the opposite party. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not facing trial in any other criminal case. On a further query, learned counsel has submitted that in the occurrence in question both the parties received injuries at the hands of each other."

3.

On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.10.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:

"On being put to notice, learned State counsel has not disputed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the last date of hearing i.e. 12.09.2024 that neither was the petitioner named in the FIR nor was there any specific role or injury attributed to him. It has also not been disputed, on instructions, that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 25.10.2024, petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating officer.

-35.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 25.10.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC/482(2) of BNSS. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 04.12.2024 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No