Prince v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-19523 of 2015 Date of Decision: August 13, 2015 Prince

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2015 under Sections 307 and 34 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. registered at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Sukhdev Bajaj. As per his statement, he along with Veer Singh was standing in front VINEET GULATI 2015.08.19 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-19523 of 2015 -2of his shop. At about 12.50 P.M., Prince, who was driving the motorcycle and Pindi, who was sitting pillion and on another motorcycle, Jojo alias Jagjit Singh, who was driving the motorcycle and Ashu, who was sitting pillion, came and Jojo raised lalkara that Sukhdev Bajaj stopped them from taking liquor and then Ashu took out a pistol from his dub and fired upon Sukhdev Bajaj with an intention to kill him but he sat down. Then Ghajini alias Prince stated that 'you cannot do anything and give it to him' and then he handed over the pistol to Pindi, who fired towards the complainant but fire hit Dinesh @ Patta below his both knees. Then again Ghajini told that 'you can't do nothing give it to him'. In the meantime, people gathered at the spot and the accused ran away.

The fact that present petitioner was driving one of the motorcycle and his pillion rider shot a fire from the pistol and lalkara was raised by the present petitioner, shows active participation of the present petitioner in the commission of the offence. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and also the fact that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to grant of bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

August 13, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.08.19 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh