← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37579/2020dismissed

Gurjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-12-18Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (I) CRM-M-37579-2020 (O&M) Gurjeet Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent (II) Inderpal Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent Date of Decision:- 18.12.2020

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Veeraj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-37579-2020.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-37805-2020.

Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the complainant. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. This order shall dispose off the aforesaid two petitions filed on behalf of Gurjeet Singh and Inderpal Singh seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.171 dated 18.10.2020 under Sections

436/427/506/120-B/34 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda District Bathinda.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Sandeep Kumar Pathak wherein it is alleged that on 22.7.2020 when he was present in his office, he came to know that Sadhu Singh, Ajaib Singh, Rajandeep Singh, Gurjeet Singh, Jatinder Kumar, Jagsir Singh, Inderpal Singh, Ravinder Singh alongwith 2530 persons were sitting in the office of gangster Gurjeet Singh Bhatti and were planning to harm the complainant as the complainant was having a dispute with them regarding a plot. The complainant had made a written complaint to the police upon which the accused were called to the police station but no action was taken. It is alleged that on 27.7.2020 Narinder Pal Singh alongwith his two associates came to his office and set it ablaze in respect of which FIR No. 124 of 2020 was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda.

It is alleged that the police, however, did not take any action rather pressurized him to compromise the matter. It is further alleged that on 30.7.2020 at about 10:30/11:00 p.m., the accused came to his office in a Fortuner vehicle and Sadhu Singh and Ajaib Singh made two persons alight from the vehicle who broke the shutter of his office and damaged the articles lying therein and also stole some documents and set his office on fire. It is alleged that the entire incident was captured in CCTV cameras installed in his office and was also witnessed by complainant's brother Ram Chander. It is, thus, alleged that the entire incident had taken place at the instance of Sadhu Singh and Ajaib Singh under the instigation of Gurjeet Singh Bhati and with the help of SHO Ravinder Singh.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence worth credence to connect them with the alleged occurrence.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is a case where the accused are using muscle power and force to get the premises in possession of the petitioner vacated and have been causing harm to his property time and again. It has further been submitted that the petitioner Gurjeet Singh is a seasoned criminal having earlier been convicted in a case of murder i.e. FIR No. 67 of 2011 while another FIR i.e. FIR No. 175 of 2020 pertaining to kidnapping is also pending and that their custodial interrogation would certainly be required.

5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. It is apparent that the petitioners are into some kind of property grabbing and have been trying to intimidate the complainant so as to vacate the property in question. A civil litigation in respect of the property is also stated to be pending. Apparently, the ransacking of complainant's office and damaging it with the help of goons is an attempt to overawe the petitioner to yield to their pressure and surrender possession of property in dispute. The petitioners having indulged in this kind of lawlessness especially when one of them has a tainted track-record do not deserve any special concession in matter of grant of anticipatory bail.

7. The petitions are sans merits and are hereby dismissed.

8. It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made above shall be taken to be an expression on merits of the main case. 18.12.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No