Naranjan Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-29522-2022 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29522-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on: 18.07.2022

Pronounced on: 26.07.2022 Naranjan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 26.11.2019 Lakhewali, District 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sri Muktsar Sahib Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

1.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail.

2.

In paragraph 10 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date Offence Police Station 1.

17.02.2022 174 IPC Lakhewali 3.

The petitioner along with his associates allegedly gave beatings to the complainant, his paternal uncle, and his associate. Jagdish Singh alias Deesha and Niranjan Singh fired upon the complainant, and the bullet hit his right arm and right foot. On raising shrieks, they ran away.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.

While opposing the bail, Ld. counsel representing the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:

6.

In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, JYOTI 2022.07.28 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-29522-2022 (O&M) [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

7.

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

8.

The petitioner had fired shots from firearm on the victim. The allegations are heinous and as such the petitioner is not entitled to any bail at this stage. 9.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage. However, it shall be open for the petitioners to file new bail application(s) in changed circumstances or after recording the statements of witnesses other than official and formal witnesses, whichever is earlier. If the statements mentioned above are not recorded within five months, the petitioner may file a fresh bail petition on the grounds of prolonged custody. The dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way while considering the fresh petition(s).

10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) 26.07.2022 JUDGE Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

JYOTI 2022.07.28 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document