Prince @ Princepal Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:26.2.2020 PRINCE @ PRINCEPAL SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Varinder Basa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

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

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.1 dated 7.1.2019 under Sections 307, 336, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC & Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur. 2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Hardeep Singh wherein it has been alleged that on 6.1.2019 at about 7 p.m. when he along with his cousin Bhupinder Singh @ Mani and brother-in-law, Neeraj Kumar was present at his dairy then Ajay Masih and Peter Masih @ Bhupi who were both armed with 'Datars', Prince Pal Singh armed with pistol, Peter Masih @ Love armed with 'Datar', Akash Gill armed with baseball bat accompanied by three unknown persons armed with handle of spade entered into his shop and caused injuries to him. It is alleged that Ajay Masih gave a blow with 'Datar' hitting his left palm. Peter Masih @

( 2 ) Bhupi is alleged to have given a blow with 'Datar' from its reverse side to Neeraj Kumar hitting on his head. Peter Masih @ Love gave another blow with reverse 'Datar' to Neeraj hitting him on his right elbow. The petitioner is alleged to have fired from his pistol at Bhupinder Singh @ Mani hitting him in his abdomen. Thereafter the petitioner fired 3-4 more shots. Akash Gill and other unknown persons gave beatings to the complainant.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that in fact FIR was lodged on account of some misunderstanding which has now been resolved and the parties have entered into compromise.

4.

Today Mr. Manjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant & injured and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. He has endorsed the fact that the parties indeed have entered into compromise and further submitted that he has no objection in case the petitioner is granted bail. 5.

Learned State counsel has however opposed the petition and has submitted that since the petitioner was armed with pistol and had fired with the same hitting the complainant in his abdomen, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has however been informed that petitioner has been behind bars since the last one year.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially that the petitioner has been behind bars since last one year and that the parties are stated to have compromised the matter, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

( 3 ) 7.

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.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 26.2.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No