Rohit v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.02.2025 ROHIT ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate with Mr. Majoj Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal, DAG, Haryana.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.
Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.
Date Section(s) Police Station District Rohit 08.11.2024 308(2), 351(2), 61, 3(5) of BNS & 66(E) of IT Act Kundli Sonipat 2.
On 18.12.2024, following order was passed:- "Petitioner-Rohit has filed petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.698 dated 08.11.2024 under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 61, 3(5) of BNS and 66(E) of IT Act
registered at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is always ready and willing to join investigation and even hand over the SIM Card and the Memory Card involved in the present FIR.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State. Considering the aforesaid factual position, let status report be filed by the next date of hearing.
Adjourned to 14.2.2025.
In the meantime, arrest of present petitioner is stayed till the next date of hearing, subject to his joining investigation as referred above.) 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 18.12.2024, passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel files status report dated 13.02.2025, the same is taken on record. Copy thereof has already been furnished to the counsel opposite. She confirms the said averment and submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required now for the purpose of investigation. 5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6.
Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and since custodial interrogation is no more required, present petition is allowed and ad-interim order dated 18.12.2024, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute.
However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
7.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) February 14, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No