Satnam Singh @ Sattu v. State Of Punjab
!"#"$# % &'
"$"( !")#"$# % *'
+#,"#-+."/01+#,,$ 222222 ,.,."
+,#, $"6#7 222222
8"!
",3 )9:2+ ;
Present:
Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the complainant """"
;2 2
#, ! <.( +,#,."
+ (,."
02.08.2021 City Moga, District Moga 379"B IPC and Sections 473, 411 IPC (Section 395,397 IPC added later on) and 25 of Arms Act The petitioner arrested in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail 2.
As per para No.15 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant informed the police that he is a car dealer. On 01.08.2021, he was showing his cars to the customers in the open space outside his shop. One Angrej Singh son of Jangir Singh had parked his Swift car for sale outside his shop. At about 5:00 P.M, two clean shaved young"men came and expressed their desire to buy a car. His son"Sharanjit Singh, who was helping in the business of the complainant gave keys to the customers and sat in the back seat of the car. After considerable time, when the son of the complainant alongwith the customers didn't come back, he got worried. About after half an hour, he received a phone call from his son that the said persons had thrown him out of the vehicle and snatched the car. Based on this information, the Police registered above" mentioned FIR. The police arrested five persons viz. Harpreet Singh @ Happy, SONIA ARORA 2022.01.18 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Ajaypal Singh, Gursharanjit Singh @ Shunny, the petitioner"Satnam Singh @ Sattu and Ranjit Singh @ Rana. It was revealed that as a part of conspiracy, Satnam Singh @ Sattu was having pistol and had threatened the son of the complainant and forced him to alight from the car.
4.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the co"accused"Ranjit Singh @ Rana has already been granted concession of regular bail on 09.12.2021 passed in CRM"M"48417 of 2021 by this Court. He further contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.
Learned State counsel argued that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions. REASONING:
6.
As per FIR, petitioner had pistol with him. He threatened to son of the complainant and forced him to alight from the car. Thus, case against the present petitioner"Satnam Singh is on different footing as from the other co"accused, who was not armed.
7.
Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of concession of bail at this stage.
8.
This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law. 9.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10
11.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition stands dismissed at this stage.
3 ;4 #"$# % *'
sonia arora √ Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No √ Whether reportable:
Yes/No SONIA ARORA 2022.01.18 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document