Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041527
CRM M-64369 of 2023 Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:041527
212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-64369-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Sushil Kumar ......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Ms.TaanviDhull, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Kiran Pal Singh, Haryana.
Mr. KapilAggarwal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU. J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C") for seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR
No.721 dated 08.12.2023 registered under Section306 read with Section 34 IPC
at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar.
2. Allegations are that brother of complainant, namely, Satyavan
committed suicide on the instigation of petitioner.
3. This Court vide order dated 21.12.2023, granted interim bail to
petitioner and the same reads as under:-
"Contends inter alia that in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in MohitSinghal and another Vs.
The State of Uttarakhand and others, Criminal Appeal No.3578
of 2023, decided on 01.12.2023, no offence under Section 306 of
the IPC is made out against the petitioner.
Notice of motion for 21.02.2024.
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent-State and seeks time to have instructions
and/or file written response in the matter.
In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation
before the Investigating Officer. In the event of his arrest, the
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041527
CRM M-64369 of 2023 Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:041527
Arresting Officer would admit him to interim bail, till the next
date of hearing, on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to
his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by all the
conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973."
4. Learned counsel on instructions from petitioner submits that in
pursuance of the aforesaid order, he has joined investigation, therefore, his
custodial interrogation is not required.
5. The above factual position is duly acknowledged by learned State
Counsel, on instructions from quarter concerned and fairly submitted that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, at this stage.
6. Although, learned counsel for complainant objected to the prayer
of the petitioner, but since State is not asking for custodial interrogation; nor
any recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; therefore, the objection of
complainant stands rejected. As a result thereof, the interim order dated
21.12.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as envisaged under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
7. It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.
8. The above observations be not construed as an expression of
opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the present bail
matter.
9. Disposed off accordingly.
10. Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
20.03.2024 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
SN JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
