High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18284/2020allowed

Kuljinder Singh @ Kala v. State Of Punjab

2020-08-07Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan4 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18284-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 07, 2020 Kuljinder Singh @ kala ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

(through video conferencing).

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

(Oral) CRM-18573-2020 Allowed, as prayed for.

This is the third petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, the first one, i.e. CRM-M-32505-2018 was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.10.2018 and the second, i.e. CRM-M-12339-2019 was withdrawn on 25.3.2019 noticing the fact that the Court was not inclined to grant the relief.

Counsel for the petitioner has filed the affidavit explaining the filing of the 3rd petition, which is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the new ground for filing the 3rd petition is that subsequently on 29.3.2019, the trial Court has recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar, who has appeared as PW-23. Ashok Kumar is a witness to the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner regarding confession of participating in the

-2commission of dacoity with the other persons. Counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-23 Ashok Kumar has stated that he never met any person, namely Talwinder Singh @ Nikku @ Mandeep Singh and petitioner Kuljinder @ Kala and no one came to his house in the month of August, 2017 and no one confessed any guilt regarding commission of dacoity along with other persons. This witness further submitted that he did not know the accused present in the Court and had seen the accused for the first time in the Court. This witness was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor through cross-examination, however, he remained consistent with the stand taken during examination-in-chief though he was confronted with his previous statement made before the police.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the averments in the FIR registered at the instance of Parveen Shahu, Chief Manager of OBC, Baghapurana, he along with his guard and Peon started for taking the cash from the chest of bank of India in a private Innova car bearing registration No. PB-47-A-0003. He was carrying Rs.60 Lacs and all the currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and were kept in a trunk. When they were proceeding, one white colour car in the way, 6/7 persons with muffled faces carrying gun and pistols alighted from the car and started firing towards the car, which hit on the chest and mouth of the guard. The complainant by opening the door went to save his life and in the meantime, aforesaid young persons by breaking the rear mirror of the car had taken the amount of Rs.

60 lacs as well as the double barrel gun of the guard along with cartridges.

-3Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered on 23.5.2016 as a case of dacoity and during investigation and till submission of the challan, the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police, thereafter, recorded the statement of one Ashok Kumar, before whom the petitioner allegedly made an extra-judicial confession in the month of August, 2017 and thereafter, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in this case and the supplementary challan was presented against him.

Counsel for the petitioner also submits that except the aforesaid statement of Ashok Kumar before the police, there was no other legal evidence against the petitioner and since after the dismissal of the second application by this Court, the trial Court has recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar as PW-23 and he has neither identified the petitioner nor stated that any extra-judicial confession was made by him, considering the fact that the petitioner is presently in custody for the last about three years, he may be granted bail as a number of witnesses have to be examined.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has, however, filed the custody certificate and submitted that apart from the aforesaid evidence of extra judicial confession, the police during the investigation recorded the disclosure statement of co-accused Talwinder Singh @ Nikku @ Mandeep Singh in which he has stated that after committing the offence, they kept the money with the petitioner and after some time, they have taken the same back by giving share of the petitioner.

-4In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a matter of trial to be decided at the time of final judgment whether the disclosure statement made by the co-accused is admissible against the petitioner.

After hearing counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the petitioner was not initially nominated in the FIR and after a long lapse of time by recording the confession statement before PW-23 Ashok Kumar, who was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution version and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 03 years and is not involved in any other serious crime, except an FIR under Section 52-A of the Prison Act, as per the custody certificate; and also considering the fact that the trial is going on a slow pace due to COVID-19 situation and out of 45 witnesses, only 27 witnesses have been examined, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner. (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE August 07, 2020 satish Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No