High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/47019/2017dismissed

Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-01-17Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

CRM No.M-47019 of 2017 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-47019 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on: 17.01.2018 Harjinder Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

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

Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.173 dated 14.09.2017 registered under Sections 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, at Police Station Division No.8, District Jalandhar. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has not participated in commission of the offence. It is further submitted that it is a case of no injury and, therefore Section 307 IPC is not made out.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kishore Kumar as well as counsel for the complainant have submitted that the entire incident was recorded on CCTV and as per the footage of the same, the active participation of the petitioner is there. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that 05 accused persons have already been arrested and the petitioner is the main accused who has prepared Mohd. Yakub 2018.01.17 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-47019 of 2017 (O&M) the explosive subtance and had thrown it on the complainant. Counsel for the State has further submitted that since the petitioner has thrown the petrol bomb, the intention to commit the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.

Counsel for the complainant has submitted that another FIR against the co-accused with similar allegations is also pending and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner and his co-accused are habitual offenders.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has been found involved in commission of offence in CCTV footage and also in view of gravity of the offence and the manner in which the same has been committed with intention to attack the complainant and his son, no ground in exercising discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 17.01.2018 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Mohd. Yakub 2018.01.17 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh