Mandeep Kumar Alias Monu v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-583-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.4.2022 Mandeep Kumar @ Monu .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Rajwinder Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No. 182 dated 31.08.2020 at Police Station Mohkampura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar, under Sections 307/387/452/506/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Vikas Sharma, wherein it is alleged that on 25.8.2020 Prince Jahaz came to his house and threatened his mother. It is further alleged that on 31.8.2020 Prince Jahaz and Mandeep again came to his house on motorcycle while carrying pistols in their hands. It is alleged that Prince Jahaz pointed a pistol at complainant's ear and demanded money and also fired a shot towards him but the shot hit against a wall. MOHAN SINGH 2022.04.27 07:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

- 2 - CRM-M-583-2022 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR came to be lodged under some misunderstanding and that infact when the complainant stepped into the witness box during the course of trial, he has not supported the case of the prosecution at all and has categorically stated that the accused present in the Court did not fire at him and nor he had demanded any amount and nor had threatened his mother. Learned counsel for the petitioner has today passed a copy of statement of PW-1 Vikas Sharma. The same is taken on record.

4.

On the other hand learned State counsel while opposing the petition has not opposed the aforestated position regarding resiling of the complainant. It has been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last 1 year and 6 months.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 6 months and that the complainant has already resiled, further detention of the petitioner is not justified. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

27.4.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No MOHAN SINGH 2022.04.27 07:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document