Disposed

Sachin v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2024CRM-M/2704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a murder-related FIR. The State conceded he had joined investigation and was not needed for custodial interrogation. The interim bail order was made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions, with safeguards for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail confirmed; interim order dated 19.01.2024 made absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

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

¶1

219-2

¶2

2024:PHHC:043043

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-2704-2024 Date of decision : 01.04.2024

SACHIN

....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present : Mr. M.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On 19.01.2024, the following order was passed :-

¶14

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.158 dated 13.06.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 341, 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arras Act (added later on), at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal (Haryana), the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia relies upon order dated 9th of January, 2024 passed in CRM-M-487-024 which was further based upon order dated 30th of October, 2022 passed in CRM-M-52722-2023 to submit that similarly situated coaccused already stand admitted to pre- arrest bail.

¶16

Issue notice of motion, returnable for 01.04.2024.

¶17

To be heard along with CRM-M-487-2024.

¶18

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts

¶19

notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

¶20

Interim in the same terms as in CRM-M-487-2024.”

¶21

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2704-2024

-2-

2024:PHHC:043043

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

¶26

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 19.01.2024 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial.

¶31

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶32

April 01, 2024	(PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶33

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sachin v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Atul Vs State of Punjab

Omkar Giri Vs State of Haryana

Padam Bansal Vs State of Haryana

Gourav Chauhan Vs State of Haryana

Gursewak Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab