Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.19893 of 2020 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.19893 of 2020 Date of Decision: July 22 , 2020.

Gagandeep Singh ...... PETITIONER (s)

Versus

State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0096 dated 28.04.2020 under Sections 379B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar.

The allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been registered on the statement of complainant-Gurjit Singh are that, he was returning to his village on a motorcycle belonging to his uncle after collecting a sum of `25,000/- from his employer. He was stopped by two persons on the way and was asked for petrol. In the meanwhile, the complainant started attending to a call received on his cell phone. Two more persons, in the meanwhile, emerged from the nearby bushes. OMKAR SINGH 2020.07.22 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M No.19893 of 2020 [2] One of them caught hold of the complainant and snatched money from his pocket and another snatched his mobile. The motorcycle on which the complainant was travelling was also snatched and thereafter all the four persons fled. Two of the co-accused, namely, Gurjit Singh and Nishan Singh were arrested and they have disclosed the involvement of the present petitioner in the said occurrence. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the present petitioner has not been named in the FIR and neither is there any evidence to connect him with the offence in question, I do not find any merit therein. The present is clearly a case where the accused were not known to the complainant, therefore, there is no question of the complainant naming them in the FIR. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the present case. Serious allegations, where a person is waylaid and deprived of his money and property have been raised.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, I do not find any ground to interfere and afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

( LISA GILL ) July 22 , 2020.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2020.07.22 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh