Gurmeet Singh @ Kala v. State Of Punjab

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2015.01.30 17:20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 27, 2015.

CRM-M-42060-2014 (O&M).

Gurmeet Singh @ Kala ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.A.R.Sidhu, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG., Punjab.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of police official alleging that one Indica Vista was signalled to stop in District Barnala by the CIA Staff. Gunshot was fired at police party with an intention to kill by the petitioner who was allegedly identified by the police official of Barnala at a Naka. The petitioner was chased by the police party headed by the DSP. The petitioner allegedly crossed Bhawanigarh from Samana to Mavi Kala. Thereafter, he drove towards Patran while the police chased him. He was stopped by the chasing party. The petitioner allegedly dropped his wife on the way and went towards Moonak. His wife was arrested with 5 live cartridges and .32 bore pistol. The

petitioner allegedly escaped from the spot and was arrested later on, on 3.11.2012. The petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. 3.11.2012. The petition for bail has been opposed by the State counsel on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was involved in 43 criminal cases by the police of Barnala and other Districts. He is acquitted in 29 cases and convicted in one case only on 19.5.2010. Thirteen cases are stated to be still pending. He is on bail in 9 cases. Four cases are pending for trial wherein he is in custody.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

Without expression of any opinion on merits at this stage whether it is a case of false implication or it is case of a criminal who is repeatedly involved in criminal activities, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioner was not arrested in this case on the spot. He being involved in number of cases was known to the police. He having been arrested after a period of about 18 days; it being a case of no injury; the petitioner having been in custody w.e.f. 3.11.2012; and no witness having been examined though the prosecution witnesses are none else but the police officials, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial

Court.

(M.M.S. BEDI) January 27, 2015.

JUDGE rka