Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 May, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065416
CRA-S-2695 of 2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH
253 CRA-S-2695 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : May 9th, 2024
Sunder Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present:- Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate and
Mr. Yatin Mehta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG., Haryana.
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J (oral).
1. Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail against the
judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated
18.09.2023 filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in
case FIR No. 201 dated 22.07.2023 under Sections 506 IPC, 1860 and Section 3
(1) (f), 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Sector 56,
Gurugram whereby his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a matter of record
that a civil dispute is pending between the parties and it was in the aforementioned
background an exaggerated version had been brought forth by the complainant
alleging that he had indulged in casteist utterances; learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that even assuming for the sake of the arguments, though not
conceded, that as alleged he had indeed indulged in casteist utterances it was not
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065416
the case of the complainant that those utterances had been made within the public
view.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of having used foul
language against the complainant for which he does not deserve the concession of
bail.
Vide order dated 21.09.2023 the petitioner had been granted interim
anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the
said order reads as under:-
"Notice of motion.
Mr. Krishan Kumar Chahal, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the
non-applicant/respondent and seeks time to address arguments.
Adjourned to 04.12.2023.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be
released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and
surety to the satisfaction of the arresting/Investigating Officer.
However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when
called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided
under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C."
Learned State counsel, on instructions does not dispute the factum of
the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating
agency. He on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for
further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065416
In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated
21.09.2023, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C. Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail
granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail
granted to him.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
May 9th, 2024
archana
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
