Gurpreet Singh @ Mitthu & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 15 September, 2017

CRM-M-12599-2017 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-12599-2017 (OM)
Date of decision : 15.09.2017

Gurpreet Singh @ Mitthu and another
…Petitioners

Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. A.S. Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab,
assisted by HC Gurmit Singh.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.21 dated

06.03.2017, registered under Sections 354, 323 and 506 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Amloh.

Heard.

On 13.04.2017, the following order was passed:-

“Counsel inter alia submits that the non-
bailable offence is under Section 354 IPC and even as
per the FIR itself, on account of a fight within the
complainant’s family, the petitioners who are
neighbours, had gone to the house to protest on account
of noise being raised. It is submitted that there is a delay
of 4 days in lodging the FIR and initially in the Kalandra
under Section 107/151 IPC, there was no such allegation
of outraging the modesty of the complainant Manjeet
Kaur. Reference is made to Annexure P-2. It is submitted
that no recovery as such is to be effected from the
petitioners.

1 of 2
18-09-2017 23:40:25 :::
CRM-M-12599-2017 (OM) -2-

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. R.S. Pathania, DAG,
Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Copy
of the paper book has been supplied to him in Court.

Adjourned to 17.05.2017.

In the meanwhile, it is directed that the petitioners
shall join investigation and in the event of arrest of the
petitioners, they shall be released on ad-interim bail by
the investigating officer and shall comply with the
conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

It is stated that the matter has been compromised between the

parties. A copy of the compromise has been furnished in the Court, which is

taken on record as Mark ‘A’.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that in

pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the

investigation and they are not required for custodial interrogation.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated

13.04.2017, is made absolute, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate

concerned.

The petition stands allowed.

15.09.2017 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
atulsethi JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No

Whether Reportable : Yes No

2 of 2
18-09-2017 23:40:27 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *