IVAD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice.

(2.) Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears, waves and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that, after notification of listing of present petition, he has called the Investigating Officer from Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and, under instructions, he submits that petitioner is a co-accused in case FIR No.34 of 2021, dated 5.3.2021, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 363, 366A, 370(4), 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), wherein his brother-in-law Nazim @ Sameer and wife Nasrin are also accused and his wife, after remaining in police and judicial custody, has been ordered to be enlarged on bail today (9.4.2021), vide order passed in CRMPM No.567 of 2021, and, till the passing of the said order, petitioner was absconding and present petition has been filed after enlargement of Nasrin on bail today. Whereas bail petition CRMPM No.620 of 2021, filed by Nazim @ Sameer, seeking anticipatory bail, has been rejected by this Court, for necessity of custodial interrogation.