Aman And Another v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56657-2024 Date of decision: February 19th, 2025 Aman and another .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.27 dated 03.03.2022 under Sections 160, 307, 148, 149, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 29-B- of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on) registered at Police Station Lohian Khas, District Jalandhar. 2.

Vide order dated 14.11.2024, the petitioners had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that both the petitioners are identically placed as co-accused Danial and Yunas @ Yaki, who have since been extended the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-9). It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners too were not named in the FIR in question and came to be nominated as accused in the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Sunil Masih @ PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.19 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-56657-2024 -2Jeona, who just claimed that the petitioners were present along with him at the time of the alleged occurrence. It has been argued by the learned counsel that no specific role or injury had been attributed to the petitioners even in the disclosure statement and furthermore the disclosure statement on the basis of which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused, does not have much evidentiary value."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of order dated 14.11.2024, the petitioners have joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Harwinder Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioners are not required for further investigation much less for their custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 14.11.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

February 19th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.19 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh