High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26348/2022dismissed

Sujeet Kumar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2022-07-18Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26348-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.07.2022 SUJEET KUMAR SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.32 dated 09.04.2022, registered under Sections 392 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 397, 212, 120B IPC and Section 54/59 of the Arms Act (added later on), at Police Station Division No.1, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana. Vide order dated 13.06.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner had been granted ad interim anticipatory bail and directed to join the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner had joined the investigation. On the other hand, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Desh Raj, submits that in the present case, three accused AMAN JAIN 2022.07.19 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-26348-2022 (O&M) -2were arrested and as per their disclosure statements, they after committing dacoity, had kept the looted money along with .32 bore pistol and motorcycle used in the crime, at the house of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The factual position on record establishes active participation of the petitioner in the crime. The co-accused have disclosed that the weapon of offence, motorcycle used in the crime and the looted money, had been kept at the house of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner are serious in nature. Thus, to unearth the truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant further concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

18.07.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.07.19 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment