Jagpreet Singh@ Jagga v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: October 24, 2016.

(1) CRM-M-28987 of 2016 (O&M).

Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga .. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Punjab .. Respondent(s) * * * (2) CRM-M-32554 of 2016 (O&M).

Gurdeep Singh .. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Punjab .. Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Ms.Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-28987 of 2016.

Mr.G.S.Simble, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-32554 of 2016.

Ms.Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG., Punjab.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions i.e. CRM-M-28987 of 2016 filed by Jagpreet Singh @ Jagga and CRM-M-32554 of 2016 filed by Gurdeep Singh, for the grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.66 dated 19.10.2015, under Sections 323, 148 and 149 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Rangar Nangal, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Baljit Singh alleging that on 15.10.2015, the complainant had received a phone call from Jagpreet Singh calling him to the house where petitioner along with Sukhwinder Singh, Bachittar Singh and 4-5 other accused had assaulted the complainant being armed with various weapons like revolver, rifle .12 bore, dang and base ball bat etc. So far as petitioner Jagpreet Singh is concerned, the allegation against him is that he had called the complainant to his home and had pushed him into the car whereas the allegation against Gurdeep Singh is that he was armed with base ball bat but no specific injury has been attributed to him.

Pursuant to the interim orders both the petitioners have joined investigation as per the instructions imparted to State counsel by ASI Manbir Singh.

In view of the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation qua

the petitioners despite the fact that Baljit Singh is alleged to have died subsequently on account of different cause.

Both the petitions are allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioners will not indulge in similar activity. (M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE October 24, 2016.

rka Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No