Sabhi Alias James v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65082-2024 Date of decision: May 15th, 2025 Sabhi @ James .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.16 dated 29.02.2024 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 23.12.2024, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded: "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a case of cross version. In the fight which ensued between the petitioner and complainant, four persons from the side of petitioner and two persons from the side of complainant were injured. Police has not registered version of the petitioner whereas claim of the complainant has been noticed and FIR has been registered against the petitioner."

3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 22.01.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and following submissions of learned State counsel were PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-65082-2024 -2recorded:

"State counsel on instructions from SI Murta Singh submits that the injury caused on the middle finger of the right hand of Sajan Singh by the present petitioner with the help of blunt side of sword is found to be simple in nature and the other injuries caused to the complainant and attributed to the petitioner are also found to be simple in nature."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 22.01.2025, 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 22.01.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 15th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.15 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh