Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1522 (PNJ)

Satpal v. State of Haryana

2012-10-17

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of both the afore-mentioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.85 dated 22.7.2012 under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 326 IPC has been added later on, registered at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion in CRM M-29092 of 2012 passed the following order on 19.09.2012:- “ Crl.M.No.55852 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-29092 of 2012 Contends that injury for offence under Section 326 IPC has been attributed to co-accused Rohtash, who allegedly caused kappa blow on the left leg of the injured whereas so far as petitioner-accused is concerned, though it has been mentioned that he was armed with a kasiya and, however, later on it has been mentioned that he gave a lathi blow on the left hand. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 17.10.2012. 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.” 4. This Court while issuing notice of motion in CRM M-31275 of 2012 passed the following order on 08.10.2012:- “Crl.M.No.59873 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31275 of 2012 Contends that only simple injury with lathi has been attributed to present petitioner-accused and that main injury has been attributed to co-accused Rohtash. Further submitted that case of present petitioner is similar to coaccused Satpal, who has allegedly been granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-29092 of 2012. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 17.10.2012. 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. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-29092 of 2012.” 5. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 17.10.2012. 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. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.No.M-29092 of 2012.” 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 19.09.2012 and 08.10.2012. 6. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. 7. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 8. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the afore-mentioned anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of petitioners Satpal and Pokar are accepted and orders dated 19.09.2012 and 08.10.2012 respectively granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 9. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.