Janak Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 September, 2017

Crl. Misc. No. M-20788 of 2017 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M-20788 of 2017
Date of Decision : September 14, 2017

Janak Singh …………………………………………….. Petitioner

Verus

State of Punjab ………………………………………… Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

Present: Mr. H.S.Deol, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No. 33 dated 22.03.2017 under Section 354-A IPC, later on amended to

Section 354 IPC vide DDR No. 31 dated 17.05.2017, registered at Police

Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

The contentions on behalf of the petitioner at the time of

issuance of notice of motion read as under:-

It is submitted that FIR No. 33 dated 22.03.2017 was initially

registered under Section 354-A of the IPC. The petitioner was

afforded bail. After completion of investigation, when the final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was sent to the Government

Pleader for submission, it was returned with the observation
1 of 2
18-09-2017 05:24:47 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-20788 of 2017 [ 2 ]

that offence under Section 354 of the IPC is made out instead

of offence under Section 354-A of the IPC. Accordingly,

offence punishable under Section 354 was inserted on

17.05.2017.”

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the father-in-law

of the complainant. He has been falsely implicated in this case because of

his relationship with the husband of the complainant. It is further submitted

that the petitioner has since joined investigation. He is ready and willing to

face trial and shall not abuse the concession of anticipatory bail in any

manner if granted to him. Therefore, this petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Bhupinder Singh, informs that the petitioner has indeed joined investigation

pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court and his custodial

interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is

verified that he is not involved in any other case. There is no allegation that

the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts before the learned trial Court, if released

on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is considered

just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, order dated

24.07.2017 is made absolute.

( LISA GILL )
14.09.2017 JUDGE
rupi

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable: Yes / No

2 of 2
18-09-2017 05:24:48 :::

Leave a Comment

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