Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal @ Tau vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2023
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
2023:PHHC:159154
CRM-M-13446-2023
Date of decision: December 12th, 2023
Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal @ Tau @ Dinesh Aggarwal
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in
FIR No.243 dated 08.12.2018 registered under Sections 302, 34 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kartarpur, Jalandhar Rural,
District Jalandhar.
2. Vide order dated 17.03.2023, the petitioner had been
directed to appear surrender before the trial Court and was directed to be
admitted on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
"Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is
neither named in the FIR nor was challaned, reference
is made to the report under Sections 173(2) and 173(8)
CrPC. The complainant had named 10 persons at
different stages from the date of lodging of FIR till the
stages of filing of second application under Section
319 CrPC on 26.04.2022, wherein petitioner has been
summoned. The complainant for the first time named
the petitioner in his second statement dated 21.12.2021
2023.12.12 18:31 after the framing of the charge wherein role attributed
at best is of conspirator. Complainant has been
consistent upon changing his stance regarding the
accused. The motive if at all was with Charanjit Singh
@ Punnu, who was stated to have been slapped by the
deceased. The petitioner is sought to be involved,
being his employee but he had left the service in the
year 2017, whereas the alleged occurrence took place
in December 2018. There is nothing which has been
mentioned with regard to the petitioner being in
contact with the above said person. The co-accused
Charanjit Singh @ Punnu whose disclosure statement
has mentioned about the motive of the petitioner that
the deceased had threatened the son of the petitioner is
however false as his son had already left for Australia
in May 2018, whereas the occurrence is of December
2018. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is
ready and willing to join the proceedings before the
trial Court. He relies on the judgments of this Court in
the cases of Pardeep Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-
18386-2011 decided on 09.06.2011; Jagroop Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-11680-2011 decided on
02.05.2011; Shishpal and another Vs. State of
Haryana, CRM-M-10747-2023 dated 01.03.2023;
Bajinder Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-
M13285-2015 decided on 23.07.2015 and the
judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of
Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy.
Homr Lko, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4988
of 2022 dated 18.08.2022."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance of order dated 17.03.2023, the petitioner had appeared
before the trial Court and furnished bail bonds. In support, he has placed
on record copy of order dated 27.03.2023 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, does not dispute the
factum of the petitioner having appeared before the trial Court.
5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim
order dated 17.03.2023 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid
down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
December 12th, 2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
