Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59574-2024 Date of decision: April 29th, 2025 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sham Lal Saha, Advocate for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.135 dated 24.11.2022 under Sections 326, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 28.11.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that firstly there was an inordinate delay of 33 days in the lodging of the FIR in question from the day of alleged occurrence; secondly, the occurrence in question took place way back on 22.10.2022 and in the preceding two years, the petitioner was never called by the police in connection with the crime in question and it was only on 26.08.2024, the police started raiding the house of the petitioner in connection with the FIR in question. It has been further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner has been attributed a datar blow on the right leg of injured-Veero Kaur.

On a specific query posed to the learned counsel PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.29 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-59574-2024 -2as to whether any proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the petitioner following the registration of the FIR in question, he has categorically replied in the negative."

3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and following submissions of learned State counsel were recorded:- "On being put to notice, learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that the petitioner has been attributed a datar blow on the right leg of injured-Veero Kaur and even though the FIR in question was registered way back on 24.11.2022, the petitioner was not called by the police for investigation in the present case in the preceding two years; no proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the petitioner as on date."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 21.01.2025, 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 21.01.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

April 29th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.29 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh