Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harpratap Singh vs State Of Punjab --Respondent on 28 July, 2014

Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                             CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM No. M-3552 of 2014 (O&M)
                                                        Date of Decision: 28.07.2014.

            Harpratap Singh                                                --Petitioner

                                           Versus

            State of Punjab                                                --Respondent

            CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

            Present:-          Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

                               Mr. Upender Prashar, Advocate for the complainant.

                               ***

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.189 dated 23.12.2013 under sections 307, 336, 148, 149, 506 I.P.C and sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Lopoke, Amritsar Rural, District Amritsar.

On 30.1.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was present in the school at the time of occurrence. It is further contended that no role has been attributed to the petitioner except his presence at the spot.

Notice of motion for 28.03.2014.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 Lucky (2) Cr.P.C and on joining the investigation."

Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Avtar Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined investigation and even the Datar that he was allegedly carrying, has already been recovered. It stands conceded that no overt act has, otherwise, been attributed to the petitioner.

In the considered view of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as such, would not be warranted. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 30.1.2014, passed by this Court, is made absolute.

Petition disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE July 28, 2014.

lucky