Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1486 (PNJ)

Surender v. State of Haryana

2012-10-15

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 258 dated 06.07.2012, under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 354/456/506 IPC, registered at police station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.07.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.Nos.42720-721 of 2012 Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-22162 of 2012 Contends that the present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast as petitioner had earlier lodged FIR against the complainant party, i.e., against father, brother and other relatives of the complainant on 9.3.2012. Further contends that even as per reading of the present FIR, no case for offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. It is also contended that it is not believable that petitioner will enter the house of complainant in the night and tried to outrage her modesty when he had already lodged FIR against her father, brother and other relatives. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 27.8.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. At this stage, Mr.Tapan Yadav, Advocate, who is present in Court, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant.” 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 26.07.2012. 4. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Vinod Kumar, that petitioner has joined investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. Bail application has not been opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State. 5. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 6. Bail application has not been opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State. 5. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 6. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Surender is accepted and order dated 26.07.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 7. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.