The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in a criminal case involving a quarrel at a fast food establishment, citing that his presence is not required for custodial interrogation.
The petition was accepted and the interim bail order dated 09.01.2019 was made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-320 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2019
Rohit
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.201 dated 24.12.2018 under Sections 379-B, 323, 34 and 325 IPC, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that as per prosecution version, present petitioner along with co-accused was sitting on a bench at Fast Food rehri . Suddenly a quarrel took place and co-accused picked up a liquor bottle and VINEET GULATI 2019.02.22 16:20 I attest to the accuracy andgave blow on the head of the complainant. Grievous injury is not attributed authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-320 of 2019
-2-
to the present petitioner. There is also allegation that accused had also took away `1200/- lying in the pocket of the complainant.
The petitioner has already joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending and keeping the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 09.01.2019 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.
February 22, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
VINEET GULATI 2019.02.22 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case.
Rohit
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
