Sahil Sehdev Alias Sahil v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-33256-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33256-2022

Reserved on: 31.08.2022

Pronounced on: 05.09.2022 Sahil Sehdev @ Sahil

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 11.06.2022 Gardiwala, District 323, 341, 307, 506 IPC and Sections Hoshiarpur 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act.

1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The complainant alleges that he is in love with his cousin sister of the petitioner Sahil, and being annoyed, he, along with his friend Rakesh alias Lambar, way laid him, and Sahil fired a shot at him intending to kill him; however, due to darkness, the shot missed. The other accused, Rakesh, fired two shots, one at the complainant, which missed, and the other at Abhishek, who was with the complainant, and the bullet hit Abhishek's foot. The MLR corroborates a deep wound on foot. 4.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.

Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail. JYOTI 2022.09.06 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-33256-2022 REASONING:

6.

The complainant states that the petitioner was unhappy with complainant's affair with his cousin and to stop the love, he thought of eliminating the lover and shooting at him, but due to darkness, lousy aim, or bad quality weapon, the bullet missed the target.

7.

An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. Without commenting on the case's merits, 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.

8. 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 interim orders granting bail stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.09.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

JYOTI 2022.09.06 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document