Allowed

Shubham Dhiman v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2024CRM-M/17779/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in FIR under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 308 and 506 IPC; petitioner not named in FIR but nominated via co-accused's disclosure. Having joined investigation and the State confirming no need for custody, interim bail made absolute subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail order dated 10.04.2024 made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Shubham Dhiman Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ A B AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-17779 - 2024 Date of Decisio n : 18.07.2024

Shubham Dhim a n

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryan a ….Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶8

Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for t he petitioner. Ms. Trishanjli Sharma, DAG, Har y ana.

¶9

¶10

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioner is seeking the concessi o n of anticipatory bail under Section 438 o f the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No . 38 dated 15.02.2024 under Sections 148, 1 4 9, 323, 452, 308 (added later o n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Chhapa r , District Yamuna Nagar. 2. On the last date of hearing i.e. o n 10.04.2024, while noticing the following s u bmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had g ranted the concession of inter i m bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:-

¶12

“Le a rned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner wa s neit h er named in the FIR in question nor an y suspicion raised much less by way of a whi s per qua his involvement in the occu r rence in question. It has been furthe r sub m itted that even otherwise, no specific ro l e has been attributed to the petitioner i n the alleged occurrence, which took plac e on 12.02.2024. It has been furthe r sub m itted that there was also an unexplaine d delay of three days in the lodging of th e FIR in question from the date of the alleged o ccurrence. Learned counsel has

¶13

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2024.07.20 00:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRM-M-17779 - 2024

¶15

-2-

¶16

sub m itted that subsequently the petitioner ca m e to be nominated as an accused on th e basi s of a disclosure statement allegedly su ff ered by co-accused Harman, who state d that the petitioner was accompanying him at the time of the alleged occurrence. Lea r ned counsel has submitted that the evid e ntiary value of the disclosure statemen t on t h e basis of which he has been nominate d as an accused is of an extremely wea k nat u re.”

¶17

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r submits that in compliance o f order dated 10. 0 4.2024, the petitioner has join e d investigation and cooperate d with the investi g ating agency.

¶18

Le a rned State counsel, o n instructions from AS I

¶19

Rajesh Kumar, does not dispute the factum o f the petitioner having joine d investigation a n d cooperated with the invest i gating agency. He, on furthe r instructions, su b mits that the petitioner is not r e quired for further investigatio n much less for his custodial interrogation.

¶20

In view of the above, the petitio n is allowed and interim orde r dated 10.04.20 2 4, is made absolute subject t o the conditions laid down i n Section 438(2) C r.P.C.

¶21

July 18, 2024	(M A	NJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE
ps
	Whether speaking/ reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶22

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2024.07.20 00:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Shubham Dhiman v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Dhiman 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

Manisha Vs State of Punjab

Mangal Singh @ Manga Vs U.T. Chandigarh

Palak and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Alias Manu Vs State of Punjab

Sonu @ Sonu Bakery Wala Vs State of Punjab