Gurvel Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-11027 of 2015 Date of Decision: 23.4.2015 Gurvel Singh --Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab --Respondent.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Sant Pal Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks bail pending trial in FIR No. 93 dated 12.9.2014 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka. Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G. Punjab, accepts notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on order dated 19.3.2015 passed in CRM-M-36240 of 2014 (Harmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab), whereby co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of bail pending trial. In fact, co-accused of the petitioner is none else but his father. He further submits that it was a matrimonial dispute. So far as trial of the present case is concerned, since prosecution evidence is yet to start, conclusion thereof will take some time. He prays for allowing the present petition.

AMIT KUMAR 2015.04.23 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M-11027 of 2015 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balbir Singh, Police Station, Arniwala, Fazilka, submits that petitioner opened the attack by firing from his pistol. He further submits that no delay is being caused in the trial and since the charge has been framed, trial will be concluded within reasonable time. He prays for dismissal of the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves the concession of bail pending trial. It is so said, because the basic dispute was a result of a matrimonial discord.

Since the prosecution evidence is yet to start, learned counsel for the petitioner has been found right in contending that conclusion of trial will take some time. So far as other cases against the petitioner are concerned, he has been acquitted in one case and in the second case, his appeal before the learned court of Sessions, is pending In view of the above and without commenting upon the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Resultantly, petitioner is directed to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fazilka. Disposed of, accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 23.4.2015 AK Sharma AMIT KUMAR 2015.04.23 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document