← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12581/2020allowed

Sartaj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-07-06Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 1.

SARTAJ SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent 2.

SUKHCHAIN SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent Date of decision:6.7.2020 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-12581-2020.

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-13852-2020.

Mr. Ramandeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant.

(the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court) **** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL)

1. This order shall dispose of above-mentioned petitions filed on behalf of petitioners-Sartaj Singh and Sukhchain Singh seeking regular bail in case

( 2 ) registered vide FIR No.47 dated 27.2.2020 under Sections 363, 366 IPC (Sections 302, 384, 473, 201, 120-B IPC and Sections 25/27/29 of Arms Act added subsequently), Police Station Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Pargat Singh wherein he alleged that his daughter Anmol Kaur went missing from home on 26.2.2020 and although he and other members of the family tried to look for her but she could not be found. Later his wife Paramjeet Kaur received a call from mobile phone of her daughter Anmol Kaur bearing No.6284762464 and the said person informed that he had found the said mobile phone. When the said mobile phone was collected, it was found that Anmol Kaur had been on WhatsApp chat with mobile No.7433762282.

3. Upon inquires having been made, it was found that the said phone number belonged to Lovedeep Singh and that the complainant's daughter had eloped with said Lovedeep Singh. It is further the case of prosecution that later on Anmol Kaur was found to have been murdered with a fire arm.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Sukhchain Singh has submitted that he happens to be father of Lovedeep Singh and has been nominated as an accused as the pistol allegedly used for killing Anmol Kaur belonged to Sukhchain Singh and on account of which he had been booked for offence punishable under Section 29 of Arms Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Sartaj Singh has submitted that he has no role to play in murder of Anmol Kaur and that he has been nominated

( 3 ) as an accused simply on account of the fact that he happens to be a friend of Lovdeep Singh.

6. Opposing the petitions, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complicity of petitioners-Sartaj Singh is evident from the fact that it was his car which was used by Lovedeep Singh in which he travelled along with Anmol Kaur who was later on killed. It has further been submitted that after commission of the crime the car in question was washed by the petitioner-Sartaj Singh so as to destroy the traces of evidence and that as such he is not entitled for the concession of bail. It has further been submitted that even Sukhchain Singh whose pistol was used is not entitled to concession of bail.

7. The learned State counsel has however informed that both the petitioners are behind bars since last about 4 months and that although 'Challan' has been filed but the case is yet to be committed to the Court of Sessions.

8. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

9. Keeping in view the fact that it is Lovdeep Singh who is main accused and that none of the petitioners can be said to be present when Anmol Kaur was allegedly murdered and while also noticing that the petitioners have been behind bars since last about 4 months and that 'Challan' already stands presented, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. 10.The petitions, as such, are accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

( 4 ) satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

11.

It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made above shall be construed to be an expression on merits of the main case. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 6.7.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No