Rajinder Rana v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47451-2024 Date of decision: January 22nd, 2025 Rajinder Rana .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ravi Chadda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.102 dated 10.05.2022 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 of the IPC (Section 326 of the IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. 2.

While issuing notice of motion on 23.09.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded: "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a case of version and cross version wherein both the parties have received injuries at the hands of each other. It has been further submitted that the injury inviting the mischief of Section 326 of the IPC has been attributed to co-accused Jatinder, who has since been extended the concession of regular bail by this Court. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner has been named in the FIR in question and has been attributed an injury with a sword on the head of the complainant, however, the said PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.22 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-47451-2024 -2injury was not found to be grievous in nature." 3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 23.10.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and following submissions of learned State counsel were recorded:

"Learned State counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner has been attributed an injury inviting the mischief of Section 324 of the IPC on the head of the complainant with datar and another simple injury on the back of injured Abhishek."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 23.10.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 23.10.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 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