Karandeep Singh & Another v. State Of Punjab Another

-1248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 04.07.2024 Karandeep Singh and another ...... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. A.S.Jawandha, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. L.S.Lakhanpal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the petition filed by the petitioners seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.12 dated 28.01.2024 under Sections 392, 307, 451 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act (Section 25 of Arms Act deleted while Sections 27/30/54/59 of Arms Act added later on) registered at Police Station City Patti District Tarn Taran. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, contends that it was on account of some misunderstanding that the FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioners and the said misunderstanding was subsequently removed between the parties. Learned counsel has further submitted that moreover, it is a

-2case of no injury as it is a matter of record that no injury much less any scratch was sustained by the complainant party. It has still further been submitted that the investigation in the present case is complete as challan stands presented and charges are likely to be framed only on the next date of hearing i.e. 16.07.2024 and hence, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not seem likely, more so, when 10 number of witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from ASI Dilbag Singh, has not disputed the stage of trial and the challan having been presented, however, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR (Annexure P-1) by arguing that both the petitioners came to the clinic of the complainant armed with firearms and thereafter without any provocation fired indiscriminately towards the complainant; the complainant escaped unhurt but on account of hue and cry raised, both the petitioners were apprehended by the complainant and some neighbouring shopkeepers and thereafter, they were handed over to the police. Learned State counsel has, however, feigned ignorance about the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was on account of some misunderstanding that the FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioners.

-34.

Learned counsel for the complainant has however also submitted that it was on account of some misunderstanding that the FIR in question came to be registered against both the petitioners. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6.

Be that as it may, this Court would refrain itself from commenting upon the compromise/settlement so effected between the parties. The petitioners are in custody since 28.01.2024. The investigation in the case in hand is complete as challan stands presented. The trial has not progressed further as charges are yet to be framed.

7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove coupled with the fact that it is a case of no injury, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioners be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

04.07.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No