Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2022
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
CRM-M-37237-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37237-2022
Date of decision:08.09.2022
Tarsem Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in cross version DDR No.22 dated 07.09.2020 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC (later on added Section 326 IPC on 12.04.2021 and Section 307 IPC on 22.05.2022) in FIR No.108 dated 31.08.2020 under Sections 307, 452, 380, 506, 323, 148, 149 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural, Amritsar.
On 23.08.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the present case is a case of version and cross-version and FIR, in the present case, was registered by one Sukhdeep Singh who belongs to the petitioner's party and as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, 20 unknown persons had entered into the house of Sukhdeep Singh and had broken household articles and had fired shots and inflicted injuries with respect to an incident which had taken place on 31.08.2020. It is further submitted that the cross-version was registered on 07.09.2020 i.e., after a delay of 7 days and in the said cross-version, the present petitioner was not named and it was only on 22.05.2022 i.e. after 18 months from the date of the incident that the petitioner has been implicated in the case. It is contended that even as per the said cross-version, no injury has been attributed to the petitioner and the only allegation 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2022 02:03:06 ::: CRM-M-37237-2022 2 levelled against the petitioner is that he had called his companions. It is further contended that co-accused of the petitioner namely Sukhdeep Singh has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2022. It is argued that case of the accused persons in the FIR is listed for 08.09.2022.
Notice of motion for 08.09.2022.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
To be heard alongwith CRM-M-34948-2022. 23.08.2022 (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurjeet Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for further investigation.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances moreso, the facts which have been noticed in the order dated 23.08.2022, and also the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 23.08.2022 is made absolute.
Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
08.09.2022
ishwar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2022 02:03:06 :::