Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2018
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
-1-
CRM-M-53175-2018 and
CRM-M-53230-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 20.12.2018
1. CRM-M-53175-2018
Hardev Singh (wrongly written as Hari Dev Singh in FIR)
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
AND
2. CRM-M-53230-2018
Jagdeep Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners in both the petitions.
Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
INDERJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of CRM-M-53175-2018, filed by petitioner-Hardev Singh and CRM-M-53230-2018, filed by petitioner- Jagdeep Singh, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.131 dated 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-12-2018 21:45:36 ::: -2- CRM-M-53175-2018 and CRM-M-53230-2018 19.09.2018 registered under Sections 395, 353, 186, 188, 148 and 149 IPC, Sections 134 and 135 of Representation of People Act, 1957 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Dayalpura District Bathinda.
Notice of motion was issued in both these petitions. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested these petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record.
From the record, I find that FIR was got registered by Amanpreet Singh, Junior Engineer, PUDA, Bathinda, who was on election duty as Presiding Officer alongwith other officials. On 19.09.2018 in Zila Parishad and Block Samiti Elections, about 50-60 persons armed with sharp edged weapons and dangs entered inside Room No.17 and captured the booth. Both the petitioners are named in the FIR.
In pursuance of the interim orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by this Court, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending them to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in both these petitions and the same are allowed. The orders dated 03.12.2018, granting 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-12-2018 21:45:37 ::: -3- CRM-M-53175-2018 and CRM-M-53230-2018 interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
20.12.2018 (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 26-12-2018 21:45:37 :::