Anil Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 15.01.2025 Anil Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*** SUMEET GOEL , J.

(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 176 dated 20.07.2024, registered for offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 466, 468, 441, 120-B of the IPC, at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar. 2.

On 19.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "Status report by way of an affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Central, Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was a clerk in Jalandhar Improvement Trust and his only role was to represent the said trust at the time of registration of sale deeds. Reference has been made to the document dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) which is stated to be an authority letter in favour of the petitioner appointing him for execution of sale deed qua plot

No.460 in the 51.5 Acre Development Scheme. Reference has also been made to the communication dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure P-3) addressed to Jagjit Singh vide which the ownership of the plot in question is stated to have been transferred in his favour. Learned counsel submits that the said document was accompanying the authority letter dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner had no occasion to doubt the correctness of the said documents. He further submits that the petitioner had been performing the same duty since 2013-2014 but at no point of time was he involved in any such controversy. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the State of Punjab has opposed the petition stating that custodial interrogation is required. List on 18.12.2024.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C." 3.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sucha Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation. 4.

In view of above, the present petition stands allowed and the interim order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

5.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting 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.

6.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

7.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 15.01.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No