Allowed

Varinder Mohan Sood etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Oct 2014CRM-M/23491/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners booked under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC for a money dispute. The court noted the petitioners cooperated with investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The petition was accepted; interim directions dated 16.07.2014 were made absolute on the condition that petitioners join investigation as required and abide by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Varinder Mohan Sood etc. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

CRM-M-23491-2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-23491-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 16, 2014

¶5

Varinder Mohan Sood and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438 read

¶16

with Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely, Varinder Mohan Sood and Tarun Sood, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Sections 323 and 354, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.132, dated

¶17

MEENU 2014.10.17 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

CRM-M-23491-2014 (O&M)

¶20

01.07.2014, registered at Police Station, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

¶21

Learned counsel contends that after registration of the case, senior officers of the police started enquiring into the matter and they have not arrived at conclusion that the petitioners did commit the offences, as alleged by the complainant. He further contends that it was a case of money dispute arising out of the committees being run by the petitioners, on the basis of which the impugned FIR was lodged at the behest of the complainant side. He further submits that in compliance of the order, dated 16.07.2014, the petitioners did join the investigation and cooperated with the Investigating Agency.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh of Police Station, Salem Tabri, very fairly concedes that enquiry is pending in this case and the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail on the premise that the Investigating Agency has not yet arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners had committed the alleged offences.

¶24

MEENU 2014.10.17 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

CRM-M-23491-2014 (O&M)

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶28

There is material to show that petitioner No.1 was running a committee. Dispute amongst the private parties arose on account of money transaction. It has also been averred that petitioner No.2 has been involved since he is a son of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the State has very fairly conceded that the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custodial investigation is not required. It is also disclosed by the learned counsel for the State that enquiry has also been conducted by the senior officers of the Police, wherein nothing has emerged against the petitioners so far.

¶29

After giving considerable thoughts to the rival contentions, the present petition is accepted. Interim directions issued vide order, dated 16.07.2014, are made absolute. The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶30

October 16, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) meenu Judge

¶31

MEENU 2014.10.17 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Varinder Mohan Sood etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varinder Mohan Sood etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaka Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rukhsar Ali & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Renu & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bachittar Singh @ Sonu and Another Vs State of Punjab

Hargobind Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab