Judgment:
CRM No.M-12557 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-12557 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2014 Prem Chand .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Amarjit Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Prem Chand son of Nand Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.24 dated 12.04.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of The Arms Act (the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 120-B IPC were later on added), by the police of Police Station City Budhlada.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the Kumar Naresh 2014.05.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-12557 of 2014 -2- entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 11, 2014: - “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner and his other similarly situated co-accused Manjit Singh, Raj Kanwar Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Charanjit Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Sohan Kumar and Chunni Lal, have been falsely implicated in this case in the wake of disclosure statement of main accused Aman Kumar. The argument is that they were directed to join the investigation and were granted the concession of interim bail. All the other accused (except the petitioner) joined the investigation and their interim bail was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The argument further proceeds that petitioner has met with a serious road side accident and sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to nearest hospital where fracture of his right knee with pyrexia and swelling, was detected. As he was unable to move and advised complete bed rest for 45 days, vide medical certificate (Annexure P-5), so, he could not join the investigation and his interim bail was not confirmed by the Sessions Judge. Non joining of investigation by the petitioner was stated to be beyond his control. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 30.04.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Bagga Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final Kumar Naresh 2014.05.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-12557 of 2014 -3- police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 11, 2014, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court. May 12, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.05.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh