Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039442
2024:PHHC:039442
207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9174-2024
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking
anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.043 dated 03.12.2023 under Sections
4(1)(A)/21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
and Section 379 of IPC registered at Police Station Nangal Bhoor, District
Pathankot, Punjab (Annexure P-1) in which FIR, petitioner has been nominated
subsequently vide DDR No.23 dated 02.01.2024 (Annexure P-2).
On 21.02.2024, the following order was passed:-
'The second 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.043 dated 03.12.2023 registered under Sections 4(1)(A), 21
(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 and Section 379 IPC at Police Station Nangal Bhoor,
District Pathankot, Punjab. The first petition was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.2024 with liberty to approach
the learned Sessions Court at the first instance.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039442
2024:PHHC:039442
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the petitioner has been nominated in the aforesaid FIR
subsequently vide DDR No.23 dated 02.01.2024. It is further
contended that similarly situated coaccused Amandeep Sharma
has been granted concession of ad interim anticipatory bail by
this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 passed in CRMM
No.7754 of 2024 titled as Amandeep Sharma Vs. State of Punjab.
Moreover, offence under Section 379 IPC has been added to
make it non-bailable whereas the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is a special statute,
which provides for complete mechanism to deal with the offence
as alleged in the FIR. The maximum punishment provided for the
offence alleged to be committed in the FIR (supra) is 5 years and
no notice under Section 41-A 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, the
petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer
on or before 28.02.2024 and on his doing so or in the event of
arrest, the 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039442
2024:PHHC:039442
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 19.03.2024.
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.'
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Rajinder Kumar, at
the very outset informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation
and his custodial interrogation is not required.
In view of the statement of learned State counsel, order dated
21.02.2024 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and
conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
19.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
