Vicky v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 207/2 CRM-M-54256-2024 Date of decision: February 3rd, 2025 Vicky .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Sachin Rai Vaid, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in FIR No.225 dated 23.09.2024 under Sections 115, 140(3), 190, 191(3), 251(b), 303 of the BNS, 2023 (earlier 323, 365, 149, 148, 379, 506 of the IPC) registered at Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt. 2.

While issuing notice of motion on 29.10.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that firstly the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question nor was any role attributed to him in the alleged occurrence; secondly, even as per the reply filed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court annexed as Annexure P-4, the only role attributed to the petitioner was of having videographed the occurrence in question while his accomplices brutally assaulted complainant-Abhishek. Learned counsel has contended that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court had erroneously observed that there were allegations against the petitioner of inflicting injuries upon the complainant and threatening him with dire PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.03 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-54256-2024 -2consequences; and thereafter kidnapping him." 3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 06.11.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 06.11.2024, 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 06.11.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

February 3rd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.03 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh