Allowed

Vishal @ Vishu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jul 2021CRM-M/51221/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for regular anticipatory bail considering the petitioner had been granted regular bail earlier, had joined investigation, and facilitated the recovery of the alleged weapon, resulting in his custodial interrogation being deemed unwarranted despite the subsequent addition of Section 307 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The petition accepted and the interim bail order dated 02.12.2019 made absolute subject to conditions for joining investigation.

Vishal @ Vishu Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-51221-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 28.7.2021

Vishal @ Vishu

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶9

Present:Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Satnam Singh.

¶11

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶12

¶13

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.113, dated 07.09.2019, registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar, on account of the fact that Section 307 IPC came to be added later on.

¶15

At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 2.12.2019 the following order was passed:

¶16

“Petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising out from FIR No. 113, dated 07.09.2019, registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, Section 307 IPC added later on, at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was granted

¶17

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.07.28 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

- 2 - CRM-M-51221-2019 (O&M)

¶19

bail by the trial court on 19.09.2019 and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence was also made. He submits that now subsequently offence under Section 307 Cr.P.C. has been added and the petitioner is sought to be arrested. Learned counsel inter-alia contends that without seeking permission of the court which granted the petitioner concession of regular bail is not permissible, the petitioner cannot be arrested.

¶20

Notice of motion for 07.01.2020.

¶21

On asking of the Court, Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. A copy of the petition be handed over to Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana, during the course of the day.

¶22

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of 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.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim directions, he has joined investigation and in fact the alleged weapon of offence has also been recovered.

¶24

On the other hand learned State counsel, upon instructions from SI Satnam Singh, has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has however, informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has since joined

¶25

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.07.28 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

- 3 - CRM-M-51221-2019 (O&M)

¶27

investigation and has also got the weapon of offence recovered and he is not wanted in any other case.

¶28

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶29

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was earlier on bail before Section 307 IPC came to be added and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has ever misused the concession of bail and while also noticing that pursuant to interim directions, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also got the weapon of offence recovered, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2019 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶30

28.7.2021 Mohan		(GURVIN	DER SINGH GILL) JUDGE
	Whether speaking /reasoned	Yes / No
	Whether Reportable	Yes / No

¶31

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.07.28 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vishal @ Vishu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal @ Vishu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashpal Singh @ Balli Vs State of Punjab

Sukhwinder Singh @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab

Sunny Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Anjana Rani Alias Anju Bala Vs Malook Singh and Another

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab