Paramveer Singh Alias Param v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 25.07.2024 Paramvir Singh @ Param .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CRM-M-23680-2024 Lovejit Singh @ Love .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-11232-2024.

Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-23680-2024.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab with ASI Parminder Singh.

Mr. Amarjeet Singh Prajapati, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) CRM-27924-2024 Application is allowed as prayed for and document (Annexure P-4) is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main case This order will dispose of above-said two petitions as both

-2of them have arisen out of the same FIR. Brief facts of the case are taken from CRM-M-11232-2024.

2.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner(s) seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.90 dated 15.05.2022 under Sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Samrala Police District Khanna District Ludhiana.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has vehemently contended that false and fabricated allegations have been levelled against the petitioner(s) in the FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, to the effect that they along with coaccused, who were armed with lethal weapons including fire arms, attacked the complainant in front of his house, as a result of which, he sustained fire arm injury on his person. It has been further submitted that petitioner Paramveer Singh @ Param was named in the FIR in question whereas petitioner Lovejit Singh @ Love was not even named and thus, it hinted towards false implication of the latter. It has still further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the petitioners have been in custody since 02.06.2022, however, the trial has not yet concluded and there is also no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future. Hence, they deserve to be extended the concession of bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed

-3the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and has straight-way drawn the attention of this Court to the custody certificate of both the petitioners, which have been filed in Court today. It has been submitted by the State counsel that while petitioner Paramveer Singh @ Param is involved in three criminal cases, petitioner Lovejit Singh @ Love is involved in as many as 11 criminal cases. It has also been asserted, on instructions, that it is on account of the involvement of the petitioner(s) in a number of cases that the trial in the present case is being delayed as they have to be taken on production warrants to various Courts during the course of hearing of those cases.

It has further been submitted that the crime in question took place when the petitioner(s) was/were on bail in the previously filed cases against him/them and hence, it was abundantly clear that the petitioner(s) had misused the liberty, which had been granted to him/them. Learned counsel has urged that in case petitioner(s) is/are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that they could yet again be involved in some other crime, and keeping in view their criminal antecedents could intimidate the witnesses and tamper with evidence. Learned State counsel has also submitted that though petitioner Lovejit Singh @ Love was not named in the FIR in question, however, soon after the FIR was lodged, he was nominated as an accused in the supplementary statement; he was one of the unidentified persons, who had accompanied the co-accused.

-45.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6.

Prima facie, the petitioner(s) come across as habitual offenders. There are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner(s) of having in a pre-planned manner attacked the complainant with fire arms and lethal weapons. The complainant sustained fire arm injuries on his thigh in the occurrence in question, more so, when the material witnesses are yet to be examined. 7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner(s). Accordingly, the instant petition stand dismissed. 8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

25.07.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No