Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 272 (PNJ)

Husan Chand v. State of Haryana

2013-03-01

Naresh Kumar Sanghi

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner-Husan Chand, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.207, dated 24.09.2012, registered at Police Station, Pinjore, District Panchkula. 2. Perusal of the file reveals that initially the case was registered under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The petitioner was arrested by the police and granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide order dated 26.09.2012. After about two months of the occurrence, all of a sudden, the police obtained the opinion with regard to the nature of injury which was stated to be dangerous to life and added Section 307, IPC. The petitioner did not misuse the concession of bail granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, therefore, adding of Section 307, IPC, would be of no consequence vis-a-vis arrest of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Raghubir Singh, Police State, Pinjore, District Panchkula, submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.12.2012, the petitioner did join the investigation and no more required by the police for any other purpose. He further submits that the investigation qua the petitioner is also complete but the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) remains to be presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted qua the co-accused of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the premise that the main injury has been attributed to him. 5. Heard. 6. Initially, the case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC. The petitioner was arrested by the police and granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, vide order dated 26.09.2012. After two months of the occurrence, Section 307, IPC was added. The applicability of Section 307, IPC would be a moot point during the course of trial. The petitioner did not misuse the concession of bail granted to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and even adinterim bail granted by this Court. After two months of the occurrence, Section 307, IPC was added. The applicability of Section 307, IPC would be a moot point during the course of trial. The petitioner did not misuse the concession of bail granted to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and even adinterim bail granted by this Court. As per the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and no more required by the police for any other purpose. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement suffered by the learned counsel for the State, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 12.12.2012 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute. 8. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ---------0.B.S.0------------