Gagandeep Singh vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—In compliance of the order dated 14.09.2012, Ms. Parul Kush, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, is present in Court. She states that appropriate action is being initiated against the defaulting police officers. She further states that in future, the police officers coming to assist the law officers shall come prepared with the facts and complete brief of the case. In view of the above, the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, is no more required.

Prayer in this petition is for grant of bail to petitioner-Gagandeep Singh, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506, IPC.

Vide order dated 15.09.2011, this court had passed the following order:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported as "Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs. State of Bihar and Another" 2007 (4) RCR (Cri) 51.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 17.10.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In compliance of the above, the petitioner did appear before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency had already filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for his prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506, IPC. According to the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, the case has already been committed to the Court of Session and is pending for consideration on charges.

During the pendency of this petition, the complainant/prosecutrix moved an application for vacation of the interim order dated 15.09.2011 on the premise that the petitioner was sending messages (SMS) on her mobile phone and was extending threats to her.

Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the confirmation of order dated 15.09.2011.

Heard.

In compliance of the order dated 15.09.2011, the petitioner did join the investigation. He is not required by the Investigating Agency for custodial interrogation. The report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. It also indicates that the petitioner is not required by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. So far as the factum of sending of the messages by the petitioner on the mobile phone of the prosecutrix is concerned, the Inspector of Police, Mr. Narinder Singh of Police Station 20, Panchkula, submits that this allegation was found to be wrong after thorough investigation.

In view of the above, the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by this Court whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, is made absolute.

The petitioner shall abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Disposed of.