Jatinder Singh v. State Of Punjab





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53957-2023 Date of decision : 13.02.2024 JATINDER SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 20.10.2023, the following order was passed : "Inter alia submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot. Apart from that it will be highly debatable as to whether the present case would fall within the ambit of illegal mining. However, the petitioner has been non-suited only for the reason that there was no agreement between the brick-kiln owner and the petitioner.

Notice of motion On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State Adjourned to 13.02.2024.

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 submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation. Deepak Kumar 2024.02.14 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-53957-2023 -22024:PHHC:020045 3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 20.10.2023 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.

February 13, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2024.02.14 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document