Narinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:031146 CRM-M-58919-2023 Date of decision: March 5th, 2024 Narinder Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Jagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.107 dated 14.10.2023 under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala. 2.

Vide order dated 22.11.2023, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, inter alia contends that a perusal of the same clearly reveals that if at all any lurement was made to part with money for sending sons of the complainant abroad, it was by co-accused Chetan Goyal i.e. son of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that no doubt the petitioner was shown to be present when the amount of `8.00 lacs was handed over to co-accused Chetan Goyal, however, there was no allegation levelled in the FIR that the petitioner had been handed over any sum of money or he had in any manner induced the complainant to part PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.03.05 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-58919-2023 -2with the aforesaid money."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 22.11.2023, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

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.

5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 22.11.2023, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

6.

Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

March 5th , 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.03.05 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh