Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurwinder Singh Alias Kala vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052961
CRM-M-12629-2024 1
2024:PHHC:052961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-M-12629-2024
Date of decision : 18.04.2024
Gurwinder Singh @ Kala ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. While issuing notice of motion on 12.03.2024, 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.28 dated
06.02.2024 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B
IPC at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
inter alia contends that genesis of the dispute is purely
civil in nature and the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Admittedly, the land
owned by mother of the complainant was taken on
lease by the petitioner and he has paid part payment of
the lease money. However, due to damage of the crop,
he could not pay the remaining amount. It is further
contended that 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
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052961
2024:PHHC:052961
Cr.P.C. was served upon 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; Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and
Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, at the first
instance, petitioner is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer on or before 19.03.2024 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 18.04.2024.
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 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052961
2024:PHHC:052961
2. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Daler Singh, has stated that pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2024, the
petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial
interrogation.
3. In view of above, the interim order dated 12.03.2024 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
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.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052961
2024:PHHC:052961
9. Disposed off accordingly.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
18.04.2024
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
