Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49847 (PNJ)

PARVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/22128/2025 · 2025-05-21

Sanjiv Berry

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

225 CRM-M-22128-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22128-2025 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 PARVINDER SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana. ..… SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) Status report dated 12.05.2025 in the form of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, has been filed. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR (Annexure P-1) as under: - FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 21 07.02.2025 21(b) NDPS Act Rori, District Sirsa 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the order dated 28.04.2025, the petitioner has joined the investigation. 4. During the course of hearing on 28.04.2025, following order had been passed: - Puneet Sharma 2025.05.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 225 CRM-M-22128-2025 -2- “ 2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor any role is attributed to him but has been allegedly nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Karmjeet Kaur from whom 7.6 grams of heroin was recovered and who happens to be the mother of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the entire version of the prosecution is doubtful and the petitioner ready to join the investigation and therefore, seeks concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Asstt. A.G. Haryana, present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State-respondent and prays for time to file the status report/reply in the matter. However, on the basis of pairvi report learned State counsel has submitted that except for the disclosure statement there is nothing substantive on record as of now against the petitioner. 6. Adjourned to 16.05.2025. 7. Needful be done well before the date fixed with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is hereby directed to join investigation within seven days from today and in the event of his arrest, he is ordered to be released on interim bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 5. Learned State counsel on instructions received from S.I. Mahender informs the Court that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is neither required for further investigation nor for any custodial interrogation. Puneet Sharma 2025.05.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 225 CRM-M-22128-2025 -3- 6. Keeping in view the above submissions made by learned State counsel and the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by this Court, interim bail granted vide order dated 28.04.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 7. The petition stands allowed. 8. It is made clear that anything contained hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SANJIV BERRY) 21.05.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.05.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment