Allowed

Avneet Kumar Alias Sita Ram v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2024CRM-M/7260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 379-B, 148 and 149 IPC. The petitioner had joined investigation pursuant to interim bail; the State did not dispute cooperation and stated he was not needed for further investigation. The Court made the interim order absolute subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 12.02.2024 made absolute, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Avneet Kumar Alias Sita Ram Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

209 CRM-M-7260-2024 Date of decision: 22.07.2024

¶3

Avneet Kaur @ Sita Ram

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶9

Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.0133 dated 21.12.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 379-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka.

¶14

On 12.02.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:-

¶15

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Sections under which the petitioner has been charge are bailable except for Section 379-B of IPC and qua the same, it is submitted that the ingredients of Section 379-B of IPC are not made out, as it is not a case of unknown identity qua the petitioner. Although, in the FIR it is mentioned that 7-8 unknown persons armed with

¶16

POONAM RATHORE 2024.07.23 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-7260-2024 -2-

¶18

baseball, dangs and gandassi inflicted injuries on the complainant. However, since, the name of the petitioner was duly mentioned in the FIR, therefore, Section 379-B of IPC could not have been attracted.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 12.02.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

¶20

Learned State counsel, on instructions from H.C. Harsh Kumar, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.

¶21

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 12.02.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE

¶23

July 22, 2024 poonam Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶24

POONAM RATHORE 2024.07.23 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Avneet Kumar Alias Sita Ram v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avneet Kumar Alias Sita Ram 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

Neelam Vs State of Haryana and Another

Joginder Singh Alias Dodi Vs State of Punjab

Abhishek Pal and Ors. Vs State of Ut Chd and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nitin Kumar Mittal Vs State of Haryana

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab