Pardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.08.2020 PARDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.P.S. Gill, 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. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him 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

( 2 ) 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 has submitted that the petitioner is being nominated as an accused on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession made by Lovedeep Singh before one Ranbir Singh on 28.2.2020 where he confessed having murdered the deceased and that it is the petitioner who had planned everything and had helped him.

5. It has further been submitted that in any case co-accused Sartaj Singh and Sukhchain Singh have already been grant bail, petitioner also deserves concession on bail on the ground of parity.

6. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused Sartaj Singh and Sukhchain Singh for the reasons that while one of the said accused namely Sukhchain Singh was charged with an offence under Arms Act, the other co-accused namely Sartaj Singh is alleged to have mainly committed an offence under Section 201

( 3 ) IPC. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner had played an active role in master-minding the murder, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has however informed that in the present case 'Challan' already stands presented and that the petitioner has already undergone 5 months of custody and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

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

8. Having regard the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and especially bearing in mind that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of alleged extra-judicial concession made by co-accused Lovedeep Singh and that he has already been behind bars since last about 5 months and that he is not stated to be previous convict, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.

9. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 04.08.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No