Harish Alias Harish Kumar Gupta v. State Of Haryana

2024:PHHC:036591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52198-2023 Date of decision : 14.03.2024 HARISH ALIAS HARISH KUMAR GUPTA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present:

Mr. Kanwal Bahl, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 13.10.2023, the following order was passed :- "Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0684 dated 18.09.2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC (Section 506 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia relies upon observations made in para 12 by the Courts below to submit that admittedly there is no specific allegation qua the present petitioner and his role yet to be ascertained during investigation which has already been noticed by the Courts below, yet the prayer for pre-arrest bail has been declined. Notice of motion, for 31.01.2024.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Karan Singh Rana, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/ Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C." Deepak Kumar 2024.03.15 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-52198-2023 -22024:PHHC:036591 2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from SI Ravinder submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 13.10.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

7.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

March 14, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.03.15 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document