Ranjit Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (Through video conferencing) Date of Decision: 07.10.2021 Ranjit Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amar Ashok Pathak, Addl., A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Jupinder Pal Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) Petitioners seek grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.206 dated 21.12.2020 registered under Sections 307, 323, 341, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda.

 FIR was registered on the statement of Gursimranjit Singh with the allegations that on 21.12.2020 at 11:45 AM, he along with his friend Vijay Singh had come to Ajit Road, Bathinda for domestic work in his car. When he reached in front of Amber Solutions Education and Visa Consultant, then from the front side, two young men came in a Scorpio car and stopped their car in front of the car of the complainant on left side. On arriving towards the driver side of the car of the complainant, both of them struck with the complainant and put him out of the car. Ranjit Singh was having a pistol in his hand. He pointed out that pistol towards the head of the complainant and fired. Complainant quickly turn his head and fire passed away from the side of the head. Complainant sat down.

Then, Pritpal Singh gave baseball blows on his head, legs and thighs. When the complainant was lying down, Pritpal Singh again struck baseball on his left arm. Ranjit Singh again pointed out his pistol towards the complainant and fired, but the bullet got stuck in the barrel of .pistol and fire did not take place. By that time, general public started gathering there. Both of them were captured by the public and were given beatings. Thereafter, assailants fled away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no firearm injury has been received by the complainant. Learned

 counsel further submits that after filing of the challan, charges have been framed. Complainant party has entered into a settlement with the accused party on 30.07.2021. Complainant Gursimranjit Singh has executed an affidavit to the effect that a mutual compromise has been effected and he has no objection in case, the FIR is quashed. Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise is not the issue involved in the present case. Petitioners seek regular bail on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant has no objection in case, the petitioners are released on regular bail.

Petitioners are in custody since 21.12.2020. Challan has been presented and charges have been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without meaning anything on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail.

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

 Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) October 07, 2021 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No