Rajwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024:PHHC:006810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.01.2024 Rajwinder Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

Present:

Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.94 dated 24.05.2023 registered under Sections 302, 307, 212, 216, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Beas, Amritsar (Rural). 2.

The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis the complaint moved by Ajit Singh. As per him, at about 11.30 a.m. on 24.05.2023 he alongwith his son Jarnail Singh were present at the flour Mill of Inder Singh. In the meantime, four unknown persons came out of Dzire car and one person remained seated on the driver seat. Three assailants, who were armed with pistols, started firing on Jarnail Singh. As a result, Jarnail Singh suffered bullet injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. Major Singh also suffered

2024:PHHC:006810 -2one bullet injury. After committing the crime, all the accused ran away from the spot.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case, without any admissible evidence against him. Even a false case has been set up against him that the petitioner had granted shelter to Gagandeep Singh alias Dadi, Jobanjit Singh alias Billa, Varinder Singh alias Joban, Gurmet Singh alias Bana and unknown person at his uncle's house. As per the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., no other role has been assigned to the present petitioner. He further contends that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and had not assisted the accused in any manner, while they were committing the crime. He further contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 09.06.2023 and challan has already been presented against him.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was actively involved in the crime. He further contends that three more cases have also been registered against the present petitioner.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner had granted the shelter to some of the accused at his house and no other

2024:PHHC:006810 -3role has been assigned to him and he is in custody since 09.06.2023 and challan has already been presented against him before the competent court. The conclusion of the trial may take quite a long time and the petitioner deserves the concession of bail by this Court. 7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subiect to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned.

(N. S. SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE 18.01.2024 M.Sikka Whether reasoned/speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No