Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039931
2024:PHHC:039931
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7974-2024
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Shiv C. Bhola, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., 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.134 dated 09.10.2013 under Sections
4(1)/21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulations of Development) Act, 1957
registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, Rupnagar District Rupnagar, Punjab.
On 15.02.2024, the following order was passed:-
'This is third petition 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.134 dated 09.10.2023
registered under Sections 4 (1) & 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals
(Regulations of Development Act), 1957 at Police Station Nurpur
Bedi, Rupnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that this
is the third petition and earlier two petitions were dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. It is further contended that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated later on,
being Special Power of Attorney holder of the owner of Tipper bearing
Registration No.PB65-BB-5803. It is further contended that maximum
sentence provided for the offences alleged to be committed in the FIR
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039931
2024:PHHC:039931
registered against the petitioner is less than 5 years. It is further
contended that no notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. has been issued to
the petitioner and as such, in view of the ratio of law culled out in the
judgment of 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
respondentState 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 23.02.2024 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.
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 20.03.2024.
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 Baljit Singh, at the
very outset informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation
and his custodial interrogation is not required.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039931
2024:PHHC:039931
In view of the statement of learned State counsel, order dated
15.02.2024 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
20.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
