High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23724/2020dismissed

Soham @ Som @ Laudi v. State Of Punjab

2020-09-10Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23724-2020 Decided on : 10.09.2020 Soham @ Som @ Laudi . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 133, dated 05.07.2020, under Sections 307, 188, 148, 149, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mohkampura, Amritsar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor attributed any role in the occurrence in question. He further contends that the petitioner is a victim of village politics and has been arraigned as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused.

Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that though the petitioner was not specifically named in the FIR, but his name figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant as well as in the disclosure statement made by the co-accused before the police, wherein, it was stated that he was one of the two persons, who had accompanied the other three accused (who had been named in the FIR) to the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the entire occurrence was also recorded in a CCTV camera, which was installed nearby. The CCTV footage clearly revealed JAWALA RAM 2020.09.14 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-23724-2020 - 2 - that the petitioner along with the co-accused was an active participant in the occurrence in question, wherein, all the accused including the petitioner were seen armed with lethal weapons and the co-accused had fired from his pistol at the complainant.

Heard.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, seeing to the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground is made out to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE September 10, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2020.09.14 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh