Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36103 (PNJ)

RAVI v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

CRM-M/15051/2025 · 2025-05-15

Mahabir Singh Sindhu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-15051-2025 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15051-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.05.2025 Ravi ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Harender Singh Rana, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheroan, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the B.N.S.S.’) has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.313 dated 08.05.2023, under Section 379-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal. (2) Allegations are that petitioner along with co-accused with their respective weapons gave beatings to de facto complainant as well as snatched his mobile phone and wallet containing cash amount of Rs.5000/- approximately. (3). Status report by way of affidavit dated 14.05.2025 of Manoj Verma, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palwal, District Palwal on behalf of respondent No.1, is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite side. Registry to do the needful. -1- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15051-2025 (4) Learned counsel contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. Further contends that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2025 and in pursuance thereof, he has already joined the investigation; hence, his custodial interrogation is not required. (5) Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, acknowledged the factum of compromise. (6) Learned State counsel, on instructions from the quarter concerned, submits that he is not aware about the compromise but he acknowledged that the petitioner has joined the investigation, and submits that as on today, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. (7) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. (8) It transpires that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2025 and the order reads as under:- “Learned Counsel, while making reference to an affidavit dated 15.03.2025 (P-6), sworn in by the de facto complainant/respondent No.2- Sunil Kumar, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Notice of motion. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; seeks time to have instructions and/or to file written response in the matter. Notice to respondent No.2 in due course. -2- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15051-2025 Posted for 15.05.2025. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer; but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing.” (9) It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. (10) In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, present petition is allowed; interim order dated 19.03.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (11) It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation. (12) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter. (13) It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 15.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) d.gulati JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No -3- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document