Allowed

Sanjeev Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2024CRM-M/21015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court made interim anticipatory bail directions absolute for three petitioners in separate criminal revision petitions. The court noted that the petitioners had joined the investigation and were not required for custodial interrogation, granting bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail made absolute subject to joining investigation and abiding by Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

(I) CRM-M-21015-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 04.11.2024 Sanjeev Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent (II) CRM-M-25289-2024 (O&M) Randeep @ Karan … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent (III) CRM-M-28370-2024 (O&M) Abhishek … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶4

Present:Ms. Pavitra, Advocate for Mr. Mohit, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-21015-2024.

¶5

Mr. B.S.Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-25289-2024 and CRM-M-28370-2024.

¶6

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana, assisted by SI Mahender Singh.

¶7

¶8

Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶9

CRM-M Nos.21015, 25289 & 28370 of 2024 (O&M) - 2 -

¶10

FIR NO.	DATE	POLICE STATION	OFFENCES
0041	22.02.2024	City Ratia, District Fatehabad	147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 379-B, 384,
			427, 452, 458, 506 IPC

¶11

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶12

This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three petitions wherein petitioners Sanjeev Singh, Randeep @ Karan and Abhishek, seek grant of anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

¶13

At the time of issuance of interim bail in CRM-M-21015-2024 the following order was passed on 29.04.2024:

¶14

“Petitioner-Sanjeev Singh aged 19 years, seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 0041, dated 22.02.2024, Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 379B, 384, 427, 452, 458, 506 IPC.

¶15

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Harminder Singh who has alleged that he is running a bhangra party under the name and style of ‘ Sabhyachar group’ and that many boys and girls work in the said group. It is alleged that on 21.2.2024, when the complainant was parking his car in a vacant plot, then his wife Nirmal Kaur, daughter Anmol and some members/girls of bhangra team were inside the house. It is alleged that accused namely Malkeet @ Roda, Yograj, Labbu @ Billa, Karan, Om Singh @ Bholu, Surender @ Kanchla, Akhtar @ Vashid, Kalu, Budhu, Happy, Sanjeev, Aryan, Panda, Nitish, Akash and Abhishek came to his house and broke the main gate and caused damage to window panes, LCD, fridge, RO, mobile, CCTV

¶16

Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CRM-M Nos.21015, 25289 & 28370 of 2024 (O&M)

¶18

- 3 -

¶19

camera, double-bed etc. and also inflicted injuries to Kaimi with sharp edged weapon and gave fist and kick blows to his wife Nirmal Kaur and also snatched an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his wife.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that a false FIR has been lodged by cooking up allegations and that as a matter of fact, upon investigation 3 out of the said 16 persons have been given a cleanchit while 10 had been arrested including 7 juveniles. It has further been submitted that in any case, the injuries allegedly caused to Kaimi have been found to be simple in nature.

¶21

Notice of motion for 04.11.2024.

¶22

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

¶23

Even in CRM-M-25289-2024 and CRM-M-28370-2024 the petitioners have been granted interim bail vide orders dated 18.05.2024 and 30.05.2024 respectively.

¶24

Learned State counsel has submitted that all the petitioners have joined investigation and that none of them is required for any custodial interrogation.

¶25

In view of the aforestated position wherein the petitioners have joined investigation and they are not stated to be required for any custodial interrogation, the petitions are accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 in CRM-

¶26

Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

CRM-M Nos.21015, 25289 & 28370 of 2024 (O&M)

¶28

- 4 -

¶29

M-21015-2024, 18.05.2024 in CRM-M-25289-2024 and 30.05.2024 in CRM-M-28370-2024 are hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners 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

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected cases.

¶31

04.11.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE

¶32

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶33

Pankaj Kakkar 2024.11.04 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Sanjeev Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Singh 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

Mohammad Chand Vs State of Haryana

Tilak Raj Bedi Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anotehr

Muskan Vs State of Punjab

Sukhraj Singh Vs State of Punjab