High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23057/2016dismissed

Simranjeet Singh @ Shammi v. State Of Haryana

2016-07-13Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-23057 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2016 Simranjeet Singh @ Shammi

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in cross case under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 307, 427, 506 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in case FIR No.94 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 452 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajound, District Kaithal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the present petitioner got registered the FIR No.94 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 452 and 506 IPC, whereas injured Jarnail Singh got registered the cross version. In the cross-version, he named present petitioner Simranjeet Singh @ Shammi, who was stated to be armed with .315 bore gun. It is also in the cross-version that the petitioner gave butt blow of .315 bore gun on Jarnail Singh's mouth and when he started running away after alighting from the VINEET GULATI 2016.07.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-23057 of 2016 -2car, then Simramjeet Singh @ Shammi fired on him. Co-accused Rajender is stated to have fired from .12 bore rifle on Virender Singh, nephew of Jarnail Singh, which hit on his eye. There are allegations that they smashed the Ritz car with lathis and dandas.

The present petitioner is named in the FIR. He was armed with deadly weapon. He actively participated in the commission of the offence. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the above facts, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

July 13, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2016.07.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh