AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amol Rattan Singh, J
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 already having been arrested but thereafter admitted to bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., this petition has been rendered infructuous qua him.
Disposed of as such qua petitioner No.1.
As regards petitioner no.2, he submits that "on account of the Bar abstaining from work", the petitioner could not appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, on 08.08.2019, in terms of the order of this Court dated 05.08.2019 and therefore, the investigating officer could not be summoned to enable him to join investigation.
It is to be noticed that the order dated 05.08.2019 had been passed in the absence of counsel on either side, with the Bar having abstained from work during those days. Thus, obviously the order had been passed after perusing the contents of the FIR only, by me.
Even so, the petitioner had been ordered to be admitted to interim anticipatory bail despite which, for the next three months, till date, he has not joined investigation, as has been confirmed by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Rishal Singh.
The contention that it was due to the Bar being on strike does not hold water, for the simple reason that, firstly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad and for that purpose, whether the Bar was abstaining from work or not, whether in this Court or in that court, was of no consequence.
Other than that, learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has even not responded to three notices issued to him to join investigation.
That being so, I see no reason to entertain this petition.
The petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 05.08.2019 is vacated.