Judgment:
CRM No.M-20297 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-20297 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 31.07.2014 Parveen .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Satyawan Rathee, D.A.G., Haryana for the State.
**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Parveen son of Azad Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.183 dated 17.05.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 427, 379 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Hansi, District Hisar.
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 entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
Kumar Naresh 2014.08.01 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-20297 of 2014 -2- 4.
During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Jaspal Singh, J.) on June 10, 2014:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the injuries have been attributed to the present petitioner and application for pre-arrest bail moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar has been dismissed vide order dated June 03, 2014 on the ground that some other case was registered against him; besides, the present case.
The injuries which were sustained by the complainant has been attributed by the non- applicant.
Notice to the Advocate General, Punjab for 03.07.2014.
In the meantime, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail, in the event of arrest at the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the following conditions, as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.P.C: (i) a condition that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;”.
5.
At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Amrit 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.
Indisputedly, all the injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature.
Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate.
Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
Kumar Naresh 2014.08.01 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-20297 of 2014 -3- 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 and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the couRs.of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted.
The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of indicated order of this Court, is hereby made absolute, on his filing specific affidavit that he will not indulge in such illegal activities in future and subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.
At the same time, 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.
July 31, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE Kumar Naresh 2014.08.01 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh