Amarjit Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-14875 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 10, 2019 Amarjit Singh and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.J.S.Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sonepreet S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr.G.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.47 dated 18.05.2016 under Sections 302, 307, 427, 148, 149, 212, 216, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station PAU, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been got VINEET GULATI 2019.04.11 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh registered by Kulwinder Singh. The complainant was driver of car of Ranjit

CRM No.M-14875 of 2019 -2Singh Dhandrianwale. As per allegations in the FIR, the car was stopped and shots were fired by the accused persons and even, the car was chased for a long distance by accused persons. In the occurrence, Baba Bhupinder Singh died due to fire arm injury.

Supplementary statements have been recorded. Learned counsel for the complainant brought it to the notice of this Court that in the statements of so many persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., name of Jaspal Singh (petitioner No.2) has been specifically mentioned and in some of the statements, it is stated that Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu, Jaspal Singhpetitioner No.2 and one more unknown person were armed with guns and they started firing upon the complainant side. As per investigation, the unknown person is Amarjit Singh (petitioner No.1.) As per allegations, both the petitioners were armed with fire arm weapons and they fired upon the complainant party and they were along with main accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu. The weapons are yet to be recovered from the petitioners.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case, nature and gravity of the offence, I find that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to them.

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

April 10, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.04.11 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh