Amandeep Alias Amna v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 19.04.2023
Pronounced on: 22.05.2023 Amandeep alias Amana
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate For the petitioner.
Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate For the injured/victim.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 31.01.2021 Basti Bawa Khel, 307, 120-B, 148, 149, 323, District Jalandhar 324, 325, 326 & 201 IPC 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2.
In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date Offences Police Station 26.09.2015 323, 341, 34 IPC Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar 14.11.2019 307, 160, 148, 149, 379B IPC and 13, 3, 67 of Punjab Gambling Act 1867 Division 6, District Jalandhar 01.07.2020 379B, 382, 482, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 216 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, Sections 61, 1, 14 of Punjab Excise Act and 21/22 of NDPS Act Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar 22.09.2020 323, 324, 160, 148, 149 IPC and 67 of IT Act Division No.2, Jalandhar
07.02.2022 384, 212, 216, 116, 120B IPC and 25 of Arms Act Division No.8, District Jalandhar 07.02.2022 307, 341, 34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act Division No.1, District Jalandhar 16.06.2022 21, 22, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act and 25/54/59 of Arms Act Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar 30.03.2021 386 & 504 IPC and 66 of IT Act Division No.2, Jalandhar 3.
The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4.
While opposing the bail, the contentions on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:
5.
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.
6.
The petitioner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. 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. 7.
On Jan 30, 2021, the petitioner along with the members of his gang attacked the complainant and assaulted them with weapons including sword. During the attack, when they tried to hit Vishal, as per him with a view to kill, then Vishal raised his hand to ward off sword, but it chopped off his hand from wrist. His family members also received brutal injuries.
8.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court
refrains from doing so.
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. The petition is dismissed. However, considering the petitioners' custody, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Sep 30, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Aug 31, 2023, and the remaining time to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired. It is clarified that this order speeding-up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.05.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.