Daljit Singh @ Deepa v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-4.3.2021 Daljit Singh @ Deepa ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, assisted by HC Kanwaljit Singh.

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

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.221 dated 30.8.2019 at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, Punjab under Sections 436 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Ajit Singh, wherein he has stated that he has a godown where he parks purchased vehicles and that next to his godown is the house of Daljit Singh @ Deepa (petitioner). It is alleged that Daljit Singh @ Deepa is an addict and a drunkard and usually entered into quarrels with residents of the locality and recently proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him in which he was sent to jail. It is alleged that on 29.8.2019 aforesaid Daljit Singh @ Deepa had consumed liquor and was hurling abuses to passersby in the street and

( 2 ) although some residents of the locality tried to reason out with him but to no avail. It is alleged that later in the night about 1-1:30 A.M. Parminder Singh, who lives in a house opposite to the complainant's godown and Manpreet Kumar, who also resides nearby informed him that Daljit Singh @ Deepa had walked on to roof top of his house and had poured something on the 'chhota haathi' vehicle parked inside the godown of the complainant and had set it on fire. It is further stated therein that the motive for doing the same was that aforesaid Daljit Singh @ Deepa nursed a suspicion that it is the complainant, who had made a complaint against him in the police station under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that, in any case, the complainant himself had never witnessed the alleged incident of setting his vehicle on fire.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that during the course of investigation the statements of Parminder Singh and Manpreet Kumar were recorded, who have categorically stated that they have witnessed the incident in question. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 2 months and that he is not involved in any other case and that as on date not even a single PW out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined.

5.

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

Having regard to the nature of allegations and while noticing that the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 2

( 3 ) months and that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time since not even a single PW out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 4.3.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No