Kulwinder Singh @ Babbal v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-26242 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:28.9.2017 Kulwinder Singh alias Babbal .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Vishal Satija, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.86 dated 6.6.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 307, 109 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

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

As per the prosecution version, Daljit Singh got registered the FIR by stating that two Hindu gentlemen with covered faces riding a without number plate Pulsar motorcycle came from the side of Village Dhilwan and shot at the complainant with a .12 bore country made pistol, Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.09.29 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-26242 of 2017 [2] which hit him in the back of his right shoulder and both the attackers ran away. It is stated that while running they told the complainant that this was the consequence of messing with Kulwinder Singh alias Babbal. Admittedly, the present petitioner was not present and has not taken active participation in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner has already got registered FIR against the Cabinet Minister of the present Government and the complainant of this case on 27.12.2016 and the present FIR has been got registered on 6.6.2017 to falsely implicate the present petitioner.

The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 31.7.2017 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. September 28, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.09.29 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh