Judgment:
CRM-M No.21036 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.21036 of 2014 Date of decision :
11. 08.2014 Jodha and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. S.S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Bansal, AAG, Punjab for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.27 dated 25.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 384, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC (the offences punishable under Sections 326 & 341 IPC were later on added), by the police of Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur.
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 deep consideration of the KUMAR SUMIT201408.11 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21036 of 2014 -2- entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Rajiv Narain Raina J.) passed the following order on June, 25, 2014:- “Heard. Notice of motion returnable on 11.08.2014. To be heard along with CRM No.M-19454 of 2014 in which anticipatory bail has been granted by this Court to one Buta Ram co-accused against whom is attributed an injury described in Section 326. In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they will be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. They will, however, remain bound by Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that Jodha son of Janak Raj (petitioner No.1) was found innocent during the course of investigation and was exonerated by the police, whereas, petitioner No.2 has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. It is not a matter of dispute that Buta Ram, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail, by way of order dated 28.07.2014 in CRM-M No.19454 of 2014 by this Court. Therefore, in that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners as well under the similar set of circumstances. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. KUMAR SUMIT201408.11 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21036 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners, by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
7. 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 pre-arrest bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court. 11.08.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge KUMAR SUMIT201408.11 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document