Mahinder Singh v. State Of Haryana





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52901-2023 Date of decision : 18.01.2024 MAHINDER SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. SPS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 17.10.2023, the following order was passed :- Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.444 dated 11.08.2023 registered for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

Inter-alia submits that even allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value the same would not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 452 & 323 IPC. Apart from that upon investigation it was found that there is no truth regarding the factum of taking out money from drawer of the shop (Galla) by the present petitioner.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana. appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Adjourned to 18.01.2024.

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. 2.

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

Deepak Kumar 2024.01.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-52901-2023 -22024:PHHC:006280 3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 17.10.2023 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, noncooperating 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.

January 18, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.01.18 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document