Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2025CRM-M/17733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; CRM-M-17733-2025; decided 03.07.2025 by N.S. Shekhawat J.; anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS in FIR No.49 dated 02.08.2024 (PS Singh Bhagwantpur, Rupnagar) under Ss.4(1), 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Regulations of Development) Act and Ss.303(2), 329(3), 304 BNS added later; interim bail of 24.04.2025 made absolute where State counsel conceded the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required; conditions under S.482(2) BNSS imposed; petitioner Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: the interim order dated 24.04.2025 was made absolute, subject to the petitioner continuing to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and abiding by the conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. ¶¶22

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Mining and Natural Resources | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.49 dated 02.08.2024 registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpur, Rupnagar District Rupnagar.

¶¶13

Court's answer

On the statements of learned counsel for the parties (for the petitioner that he had joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be required; for the State that he had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further investigation), the interim order dated 24.04.2025 granting interim anticipatory bail is made absolute.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The bail is conditional: the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions specified under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Petition under Section 482 B.N.S.S. – FIR No.49 dated 02.08.2024, Police Station Singh Bhagwantpur, District Rupnagar, under Sections 4(1) and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations of Development) Act, with Sections 303(2), 329(3) and 304 BNS added later – Interim anticipatory bail granted on 24.04.2025 – At final hearing, counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner had joined the investigation, and learned State counsel stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for further investigation – On these joint statements, the interim order dated 24.04.2025 made absolute – Petitioner to continue joining the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and to abide by the conditions under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. (Coram: N.S. Shekhawat J., decided 03.07.2025).

¶1

207

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-17733-2025 Date of Decision:03.07.2025

Raj Kumar

…Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

¶9

Present : Ms. Navdeep Kaur Bhola, Advocate with Mr. Shiv C. Bhola, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.49, dated 02.08.2024 under Sections 4(1) and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulations of Development) Act and Section 303(2),329(3),304 of BNS has been added later on, registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpur, Rupnagar District Rupnagar (Annexure P-1).

¶14

While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 24.04.2025, the following contentions were noticed by this Court:-

¶15

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor there is any averment, which even remotely connects the petitioner with the commission of crime. He further contends that the petitioner has been wrongly shown to be the owner of a tipper, which was used by one of the accused. He further contends that the petitioner had taken the truck on rent and had handed over the same to Royal Deep Private

¶16

HITESH 2025.07.03 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-17733-2025

¶18

-2

¶19

Construction Private Limited, Bathinda, who were in possession of the said truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the receipts (Annexures P-2 to P-6) in this regard.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions and further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be required.

¶21

Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.

¶22

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the interim order dated 24.04.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S .

¶23

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 03.07.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶24

HITESH 2025.07.03 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmanjeet Singh Alias Honey and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Davinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rahul Chaudhary @ Chucha Vs State of Punjab

Rohit Bhadana Vs State of Haryana

Rohit Lohia and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surjit Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab