Gujrjeet Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59077-2024 Date of decision: February 24th, 2025 Gurjeet Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.149 dated 13.06.2024 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 341, 506 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad.

2.

Vide order dated 26.11.2024, 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 for the petitioner inter alia contends that the occurrence in question is stated to have taken place on 12.06.2024 and the FIR was lodged on the following day. While drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR annexed as Annexure P-1, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not named therein nor any specific injury/role attributed to him; the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused more than two months after the alleged occurrence in a supplementary PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.24 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-59077-2024 -2statement recorded by the complainant wherein also he merely stated that one Gurjeet Singh son of Raju was also accompanying the other co-accused at the time of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise in the supplementary statement also no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner other than being alleged that he was part of the unlawful assembly which attacked the complainant on the fateful day."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 26.11.2024, 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 26.11.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

February 24th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.02.24 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh