Rajinder Singh Alias Malli v. State Of Punjab




 


 

  
  




!

"#$#%&
%!
'()*





    



  &
 +,
-.
- 


-
  

 
 

!"

 
  
"

 
  #

$ 
 %%% 

-
*

/,0& & 
 





"
'()

* *  
" +


 
,-
.
# / ,-
0 $
"


" 16.02.2024 City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran 307, 34 and 120-B of IPC, 1 2 
"

 
"
!

 
 


 

 
 
 
 .
,-
#
 

 

 .
" 
+
 
".
$


#
 

 
 

3451151'


( (5


#
  
"


"  
 
# 
""





#


6
".
  


 
& +
 
 


  ".
 .

 
 


  





# 
+ 
 +


 
+
 
 


 
"/ ""
 
7.


.

 +
#



.

 3555558/

 

9 
 
".
#

"


"

 
 



 
 
 
!
""





#


6
 "
.
+
".

 . "+"

 

 
#
.
 .
#

.
#
 


.

   

 .
 

:

 +



.
:
#
 

 


 .


# ..+
 

 

:
 
 
 
.!

. 
 .


#
 
.
+
"





 
"
#

.

 
7.


"
 
,-
0
35

3553151'
#   

"

*+
& 
& 
& 


  "

 "

 
!
 
7.

 
  

 


.

  

 
,-
!   " 
!



 

#+
& 

 .!

"



 / 

 
 
* 

  

; 
& 
& 
# "

#
.
!
 
 5'54151' ( & 
 




+
 


 





 
+

"
 



+
."
 
"
.+

#

 

 


 
.
 "..

 
 
"

. 
.


 
". +

.
  .
:
#
.

 
,-

 

 " 
.

 
"/""
# "



.

!"

:
"
  


< 
0
"! +



"  .
.
:

+


 
! 
&   


 
  

 !


#


 !


=

 
4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. It is not that the petitioner was named only in the disclosure statement of the co-accused but even at the time of lodging of FIR on the day of occurrence itself, the complainant had disclosed that the accused Manjinder Singh @ Mintu, Palwinder Singh @ Laadi had hurled abuses to him and also told him that they had been given contract to kill him for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the present petitioner and the co-accused. It is argued that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and in pursuance of that conspiracy, the coaccused had fired shots on complainant with pistol with an intention to kill him. He has criminal antecedents. As many as seven cases stand registered against him. There are chances of his intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters for grant of bail in a celebrated pronouncement cited as "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2011 (1) RCR

(Criminal) 126", the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail had been succinctly laid down by making the following observations: "122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail : i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

123. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case."

7.

The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused and as per the allegations, on the behest of the petitioner, the coaccused Manjinder Singh @ Mintu had fired a shot with the pistol on the complainant with an intention to kill him. The complainant had admittedly sustained a fire arm injury in his abdomen. The pistol used in the crime had been recovered from the co-accused Palwinder Singh on the same day. Though it has not come on record that the petitioner was physically present at the time of occurrence, however, specific allegations about his engaging the co-accused Palwinder Singh and Manjinder Singh as contract killers for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to kill the complainant have been levelled which are obviously serious in nature. It is well settled that c
  

 "
 

<!

+
. 
"
 
 
<
 "
# 

#
""
#

! 
 

"
'()
 * *
+

 .
"

 
 
"   
-



.

" 






 /  

7

!

  +
" "."

 #

!

.


 
"
-
.
 
" 

 
"
  

 

 < 

""  

! 

 
.
+
 
" ""  +



=


 / 


.
 :"
 


. 7.

-

#! 
" 
 
 !
.
 !  


" 


= 



 
. 

 
" 8.

"
 
.



.


"

+

 
 "











1

-
2


 %!
'()*