Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048521
CRM-M-11686-2024 1
2024:PHHC:048521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208
CRM-M-11686-2024
Date of decision : 09.04.2024
Sukhchain Singh ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. While issuing notice of motion on 05.03.2024, following
order was passed:-
"The instant petition has been filed under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.212 dated
21.10.2023 registered under Sections 353, 186, 506,
427, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Guruharsahai,
District Ferozepur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,
contends that there is delay of one day in registration
of the FIR and after due deliberations, petitioner had
been falsely implicated in the present case. No
specific role is attributed to the petitioner and he is
not involved in any other case. The maximum
punishment provided for the offence alleged to be
committed in the FIR (supra) is upto 7 years and no
notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served upon
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048521
2024:PHHC:048521
the petitioner. As such, in view of the ratio of law
culled out in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI
(2022) 10 SCC 51, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara,
Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
In the meantime, keeping in view the law
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51;
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC
137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State
of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal
Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal)
833, at the first instance, petitioner is directed to
appear before the Investigating Officer on or before
12.03.2024 and on his doing so or in the event of
arrest, petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on
furnishing of bail/surety bond to the satisfaction of the
Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall
cooperate with the Investigating Officer and abide by
the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2)
Cr.P.C.
If the Investigating/Arresting Officer does not
permit the petitioner to join the investigation, the
petitioner would appear before the Illaqa Magistrate,
who would then summon the Arresting Officer and
direct him to join the petitioner in investigation, in
terms of the order of this Court.
Adjourned to 09.04.2024.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048521
2024:PHHC:048521
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed
as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the
case and the trial Court shall proceed without being
prejudiced by observations of this Court."
2. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Mohinder Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2024,
the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for
custodial interrogation.
3. In view of above, the interim order dated 05.03.2024 passed
by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated
under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
4. This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will
not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall
be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of
any other incident that involves commission of an offence.
5. This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights
or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the
charges against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the
purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to a discovery
of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in
case the occasion arises.
7. It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to
move this court for a direction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to arrest
the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding,
non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048521
2024:PHHC:048521
inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the
investigation or trial.
8. Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Disposed off accordingly.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
