Allowed

Rahul Sorot v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2020CRM-M/30750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Relying on the facts that the petitioner had already been granted interim bail, joined investigation, and cooperative stance while similarly situated co-accused were granted bail, the court made the earlier order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.10.2020 made absolute; anticipatory bail granted subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Rahul Sorot Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-30750-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.11.2020

Rahul Sorot

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶10

Present: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Heard through video conferencing.

¶15

On 05.10.2020, the following order was passed:-

¶16

“Heard through video conferencing.

¶17

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.347 dated 24.07.2018 under Sections 148, 149, 306, 323, 324, 341, 427, 506 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 306 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were deleted and Sections 326 and 307 IPC were added later on) registered at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana.

¶18

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that Geeta, the

¶19

YOGESH SHARMA 2020.11.26 07:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-30750-2020 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

daughter of the complainant Bijender, was married to one Jasbir Singh in the year 2013 and two children were born out of the wedlock. Jasbir Singh committed suicide on 23.07.2018. He further contends that the allegation in the FIR is that the complainant and his son were attacked by some people while they were on their way back from the house of Jasbir Singh where they had gone after Jasbir Singh had committed suicide. He further contends that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail in CRM-M No.9230 of 2020 (Harveer vs State of Haryana) and in CRM-M No.19168 of 2020 (Devender vs. State of Haryana) vide orders dated 09.09.2020.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Dimple Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice. A complete paper-book has already been furnished to her. She is not in a position to deny that the similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M No.9230 of 2020 and CRM-M No.19168 of 2020.

¶25

Adjourned to 25.11.2020.

¶26

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when called for. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing adequate surety and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions as specified in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from DSP Dharamvir Singh, has stated that the petitioner has since joined investigation and has fully co-operated and he is no longer required for further investigation as of now.

¶28

YOGESH SHARMA 2020.11.26 07:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-30750-2020 (O&M)

¶30

-3-

¶31

In view of the above, the order dated 05.10.2020 is made absolute. The petitioner shall, however, come present as and when called. The petitioner shall also abide by all the terms and conditions as specified under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶32

Disposed off, accordingly.

¶33

( ALKA SARIN ) 25.11.2020 JUDGE

¶34

Yogesh Sharma

¶35

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶36

YOGESH SHARMA 2020.11.26 07:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahul Sorot v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sorot v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajan Singh Alias Piddi Vs State of Punjab

Dalveer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amritpal Singh @ Manna Vs State of Punjab

Ashu Vs State of Punjab

Aash Mohd. Vs State of Haryana

Aijaj Vs State of Haryana