Gurjant Singh Alias Janta v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 22.04.2022
Pronounced on: 13.05.2022 Gurjant Singh @ Janta
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Anterpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, DAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 14.12.2019 Payal, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 506, Police District 148, 149 IPC and 25, 27 of Khanna, District Arms Act Ludhiana (341, 120-B, 201 and 483 IPC added later on) 1.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking bail.
2.
In paragraph 19 of the bail application, and paragraph 3 the status report, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents: Sr.
No.
FIR No.
Date Offences Police Station 1.
(on bail) 09.03.2020 307, 353, 186 IPC and 25 of Arms Act Mehatpur, District Kapurthala 2.
(on bail) 30.01.2020 307, 394 IPC and 25, 27,54 of Arms Act Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala 3.
04.12.2019 307, 353, 186, 34 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur 4.
(on bail) 12.12.2019 307, 148, 149, 427, 506, 120-B, 201 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act Noormehal, District Jalandhar 5.
(on bail) 20.11.2019 379-B and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar 6.
(on bail) 03.12.2019 379-B IPC Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar
7.
(on production warrant) 07.05.2020 52-A of Prisons Act City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur 8.
(on production warrant) 27.06.2020 52-A of Prisons Act City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur 9.
(on production warrant) 17.09.2020 52-A of Prisons Act City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur 10.
(on bail) 06.05.2016 379-B of IPC Mehatpur, District Jalandhar 11.
(on production warrant) 379-B of IPC Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar 3.
The incident pertains to 13.12.2019, when the injured Hardeep Singh was waylaid by accused party, where Yadwinder Singh fired from his pistol, which he was carrying and other persons brutally gave beatings to him with gandasa, kirch etc. Due to the injuries, the victim became unconscious and was taken to hospital. On 14.12.2019, the doctor declared him fit to make a statement. He disclosed about the incident as mentioned above.
4.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.
While opposing the bail, Ld. counsel representing the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:
6.
In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
7.
As per status report dated 07.03.2022, the complainant had identified the petitioner. Thus, given above, the petitioner is equally liable for all the injuries sustained by the victim because he has been arraigned as accused under Sections 148, 149 read with Section 120-B IPC. Furthermore, a perusal of the petition does not refer to any
averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior. 8.
In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage. However, it shall be open for the petitioners to file new bail application(s) in changed circumstances or after recording the statements of witnesses other than official and formal witnesses, whichever is earlier. If the statements mentioned above are not recorded within six months, the petitioner may file a fresh bail petition on the grounds of prolonged custody. The dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way while considering the fresh petition(s).
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. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.05.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.