High CourtsSingle Bench

Sonu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 P&H CK 0186

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 379A, 395 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 29470 Of 2020 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 336 words

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.208 dated 14.07.2020 under Sections 379-A, 34 IPC (Section 379-A IPC was deleted

and Section 395 IPC was added later on), registered at Police Station Sector-56, District Gurugram.

While granting interim bail to the petitioner, following order was passed by this Court on 24.09.2020: -

“...Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. It is submitted that two accused namely Akash and

Prince already stand arrested. The petitioner has been named in a statement given by Akash. Counsel further submits that initially the FIR was

registered under Section 379-A IPC, however the same was deleted and Section 395 IPC was added.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

On instructions from police official, learned State counsel does not dispute the factual position but opposes the bail.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation. He submits that because of COVID situation also, retention of

the petitioner in jail would be dangerous to his life.

Adjourned to 14.01.2021.

Without commenting upon merits of the case and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the

present COVID situation, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer to join investigation...â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for

any further investigation.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satish Kumar, has not disputed the factual position and states that the petitioner is no more required

for any further investigation.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.09.2020 is made absolute subject to the

conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.