Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M- 29754 of 2020 Date of Decision: 25.09. 2020 Satnam Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from FIR No. 87, dated 10.07.2020, registered under Section 307, 160, 148 & 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga.

In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, in para 4 of its order dated 31.08.2020, which is extracted as under:

"Present FIR has been lodged by SI Manjinder Singh on receiving a secret information that on 08.07.2020 at about 1.30 PM, a party consisting of Gosha, Binder Singh, Gaggi, Beera Singh, Gora, Manu, Gursharan Singh and 7-8 unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons and second DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M- 29754 of 2020 party consisting of Gagni and Satnam Singh alongwith 12-13 unidentified persons also armed with deadly weapons on the bank of Gajjan Canal are firing at each other. In the said firing incident, Gursharan Singh belonging to party headed by Gosha has suffered a bullet injury in his thigh. Said Gursharan Singh is lying admitted in some hospital at Ludhiana. It led to lodging of present FIR on 10.07.2020".

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact no incident took place and the parties have entered into a settlement. On the other hand, Ms. Samina Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that fire arms were used and Gursharan Singh suffered a bullet injury on his thigh. She further contends that the fire arm is yet to be recovered.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge September 25, 2020 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.09.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document