Disposed

Mohd. Hanif v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2024CRM-M/1558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an NDPS Act FIR after interim protection; the State conceded he had joined investigation and was no longer needed for custodial interrogation. The court made its earlier interim bail order absolute under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail order dated 12.01.2024 made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions; petition disposed of.

Mohd. Hanif Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

219

¶2

2024:PHHC:045628 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-1558-2024 Date of decision : 04.04.2024

MOHD. HANIF

....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present : Mr. Sameydeen, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On 12.01.2024, the following order was passed :-

¶14

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.220 dated 04.11.2022, registered under Sections 15/25/29 (Notification no.61 of NDPS Act at Police Station Jagron, District Ludhiana, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner was initially granted interim protection but the prearrest bail was declined on the ground that the petitioner has not joined the investigation. He further submits that the petitioner approached the Investigating Officer number of times and even calls were made for allowing him to join investigation but was not allowed to do so. Thus non-joining of investigation was not on account of fault of the petitioner.

¶16

Notice of motion for 04.04.2024.

¶17

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶18

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.”

¶19

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.04 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-1558-2024

-2-

2024:PHHC:045628

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Surjeet Singh submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

¶24

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 12.01.2024 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶26

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.

¶28

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial.

¶29

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶30

April 04, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.04 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohd. Hanif v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hanif v. State of Punjab

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

Sonu Alias Juli Vs State of Haryana

Mamta Mamtesh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sarvan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mangal Singh Vs State of Punjab