Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46654-2024 Date of decision: January 22nd, 2025 Gagandeep Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. P.P.S. Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) This is second petition filed by the petitioner seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.239 dated 30.06.2024 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 448, 511 of the IPC registered at Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar. 2.

Vide order dated 19.09.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to what was the material change in circumstances after withdrawal of the previous petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as recently as on 14.08.2024, it has been submitted that subsequently, parties have resolved all their disputes and settled the matter. In support, attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-2, which is the settlement deed dated 11.09.2024. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-46654-2024 -2Ms. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate puts in appearance and files her memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. She undertakes to file her power of attorney in the Registry of this Court before the next date of hearing. She does not dispute the submissions made by the counsel opposite with respect to the compromise having been affected between the parties. She also does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner for being extended the concession of anticipatory bail." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 19.09.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute that the petitioner, in compliance of order dated 19.09.2024, has joined investigation and submits that the petitioner is not required for his custodial interrogation.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 19.09.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

January 22nd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh