Varinder Singh. Vs. State of Punjab. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057002
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-19-2012
AppellantVarinder Singh.
RespondentState of Punjab.
Excerpt:
crm not m-13483 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m- 13483 of 2012(o&m) date of decision: november 19, 2012. varinder singh.....petitioner(s) versus state of punjab.....respondent (s) coram:- hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.rajiv joshi, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.rajesh bhardwaj, addl.a.g., punjab. ***** ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of code of criminal procedure in fir no.2 dated 06.01.2012, under sections 324/34/307 ipc, registered at police station fatehgarh churiyan. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, gurdaspur dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. crm not m-13483 o”2. this court while issuing notice of motion on 09.05.2012 passed the following order:- “crl.m.no.27535 of 2012 application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.not m-13483 of 2012 contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in his case after about four days of the occurrence. it is further submitted that petitioner was seriously ill and remained admitted in pgimer, chandigarh from 14.12.2011 to 15.2.2012, whereas the alleged occurrence is dated 2.1.2012 and hence, he could not be present at the place of alleged occurrence. notice of motion to advocate general, punjab, for 22.5.2012. however, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438 (2) cr.p.c.” it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 09.05.2012. it has also been stated by learned counsel for the state that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. there are no allegations on behalf of the state that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the court, if released on bail. crm not m-13483 o”3. hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of varinder singh is accepted and order dated 09.05.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438(2) cr.p.c.the present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( ram chand gupta ) november 19, 2012. judge ‘om’
Judgment:

CRM not M-13483 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 13483 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: November 19, 2012.

Varinder Singh.....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab.....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.2 dated 06.01.2012, under Sections 324/34/307 IPC, registered at police station Fatehgarh Churiyan.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

CRM not M-13483 o”

2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 09.05.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.27535 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.M.not M-13483 of 2012 Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in his case after about four days of the occurrence.

It is further submitted that petitioner was seriously ill and remained admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh from 14.12.2011 to 15.2.2012, whereas the alleged occurrence is dated 2.1.2012 and hence, he could not be present at the place of alleged occurrence.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 22.5.2012.

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 09.05.2012.

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

CRM not M-13483 o”

3. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Varinder Singh is accepted and order dated 09.05.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 19, 2012.

JUDGE ‘om’