Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora Advocate Vs. State of Punjab ….Respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1158956
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-30-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sandeep Arora Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab ….Respondent
Excerpt:
cr.misc.-m-19456 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr.misc.-m-19456 of 2014 date of decision: 30.07.2014. satish kumar & others ….petitioners versus state of punjab ….respondent coram: hon’ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present: mr.sandeep arora, advocate for the petitioners.mr.k.s.sidhu, dag, punjab. ***** tejinder singh dhindsa j. (oral) this order shall dispose of the present petition filed under section 438 cr. p.c.seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in fir no.68 dated 6.5.2014 under sections 323, 295-a ipc, registered at police station bhargo camp, district jalandhar. while issuing notice of motion on 30.05.2014 the following order was passed:- “counsel would contend that even as per version of amarbir singh complainant, the complainant himself had gone at the spot and had entered into a scuffle. it is argued that even as per complainant's version, the offence under section 295a of amended ipc is not made out as there was no deliberate intent as alleged on the part of the present petitioner to hurt the religious feeling of the complainant. counsel has further argued that bail application preferred by the petitioner has been declined by the additional sessions judge, jalandhar vide impugned order dated 26.05.2014 by observing that there is a specific bar laid down under kanchan 2014.08.01 14:26 i attest to the accuracy and section 295-aa in the light of punjab second amendment act, 2010 and integrity of this document chandigarh cr.misc.-m-19456 of 2014 2 as such an application under section 438 cr.p.c.was not maintainable. in this regard, counsel would argue that the proposed amendment by way of section 295-aa is not there in the statute book as on date and as such the application under section 438 cr.p.c.could not have been declined on such ground. notice of motion, returnable for 30.07.2014. in the meanwhile, petitioners are directed to join investigation. in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer. the petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and they shall remain bound by the conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) cr.p.c.”. learned state counsel upon instructions from asi fakir singh would apprise the court that the petitioners have since joined investigation. that apart the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners as recorded in the notice of motion order has gone unrebutted. accordingly, the present petition is allowed. order dated 30.05.2014 passed by this court is made absolute. disposed of. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge3007.2014. yakub kanchan 2014.08.01 14:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Cr.Misc.-M-19456 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc.-M-19456 of 2014 Date of decision: 30.07.2014.

Satish Kumar & others ….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.

(Oral) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.

P.C.seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.68 dated 6.5.2014 under Sections 323, 295-A IPC, registered at Police Station Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar.

While issuing notice of motion on 30.05.2014 the following order was passed:- “Counsel would contend that even as per version of Amarbir Singh complainant, the complainant himself had gone at the spot and had entered into a scuffle.

It is argued that even as per complainant's version, the offence under Section 295A of amended IPC is not made out as there was no deliberate intent as alleged on the part of the present petitioner to hurt the religious feeling of the complainant.

Counsel has further argued that bail application preferred by the petitioner has been declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 26.05.2014 by observing that there is a specific bar laid down under Kanchan 2014.08.01 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and Section 295-AA in the light of Punjab Second Amendment Act, 2010 and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.Misc.-M-19456 of 2014 2 as such an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.was not maintainable.

In this regard, counsel would argue that the proposed amendment by way of Section 295-AA is not there in the statute book as on date and as such the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.could not have been declined on such ground.

Notice of motion, returnable for 30.07.2014.

In the meanwhile, petitioners are directed to join investigation.

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and they shall remain bound by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

.

Learned State Counsel upon instructions from ASI Fakir Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioners have since joined investigation.

That apart the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners as recorded in the notice of motion order has gone unrebutted.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

Order dated 30.05.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.

Disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE3007.2014.

yakub Kanchan 2014.08.01 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh