Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040383
CRM-M-9591-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:040383
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9591-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Amar Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking
anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.70 dated 02.02.2024 under
Sections 34, 457 & 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rania, District
Sirsa.
2. On 22.02.2024, the 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.70 dated 02.02.2024 registered under Sections 34, 457 and
506 IPC at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040383
2024:PHHC:040383
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends
that in fact, the petitioner had called at the police helpline
No.112 and the complainant is the person, who had engaged
him in the scuffle. It is further contended that the petitioner
has clean antecedents. The maximum punishment provided for
the offence alleged to be committed in the FIR (supra) is upto
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, Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG,
Haryana, 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 29.02.2024 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040383
2024:PHHC:040383
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."
3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kuldeep, at
the very outset, informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the
investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.
4. In view of the statement of learned State counsel, order dated
22.02.2024 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner shall abide by the terms
and conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
5. The petition stands disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
20.03.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
