Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajroop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 August, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-16475 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-16475 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:16.08.2013
Rajroop Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Rajroop Singh son of Darbara Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.696 dated 02.12.2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 307 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Assandh, District Karnal, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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 help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Rani Seema S 2013.08.16 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16475 of 2013(O&M) 2 Bench of this Court(Vijender Singh Malik, J.) passed the following order on 20.05.2013:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only said to be holding a danda during the occurrence. According to him, no injury has been caused in this case by anyone, much less the petitioner. He further submits that Pradeep @ Nanha, a co- accused of the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 25.04.2013. He further submits that though, Mandip was said to be having a small barrel gun and Rakesh Kumar is said to have fired a shot from the same after taking the gun from him, but that shot did not hit anyone.
Notice of motion, returnable for 25.07.2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down in section 438 sub section 2 clauses(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and charges have not yet been framed against him. He is not a previous convict. Moreover, the investigating officer is not present to controvert the indicated factual matrix. Meaning thereby, the State has nothing to oppose the petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other 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 petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated 20.05.2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to Rani Seema S 2013.08.16 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-16475 of 2013(O&M) 3 the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this regard.
August 16, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema S
2013.08.16 16:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh