Gurdeep Singh @ Kala v. State Of Punjab
!"# $%&%!'()**) +,# -.%'/012 % %!' , .
!" +'4 5 '# '! 0 , &-!'# ' ( 67 ) ..
7
!"
# $ %
& # $ &' ((((( .
78) 7 ) " *+, -&
'.', " " /01&..23 )2))'.'* " ))+4)5,,,-& '.',4 ))+4'5).2-&
1 &)' '+.)'.'65
-7
" ' 9 /01 : 4 " 57 ;
P a g e | 2 ! " #$%&$'' ( ) *
+, ()$ -+ # $ ! ) ) ( + )++ . / 0
&$
( 0 " ' 0
) )
+ 1 2% 22 3' + +
. ) ) + + 4! 5
0 + + ! !) +
6 + + +
6 0 + )+ ()
+ ) + ++
+ 6 ) + + ++ 1 + + ) + ( 7+ ! &! + 6
+ ( +
! + + 8+ 0+ 0
)
86( ) ) ) 9 + 4 5
+ . ! " #$%&$'' : ;& : ( .) +
+ 2* 22 3'< , # "
'.))'.'*# "
P a g e | 3
/01 : 7 ! 7 "
7#
"
! 7 41 5 " < 7 # )) ), 9 " * #
"
&
4#
$
&'5 "
"#
8 .,))'.'6 $ 7 8 6 0
" 3 7 '.))'.'* 9 7 7 ',.*'.'67 ') 7 " 76" < 7" 0 " $ 7 1 " < 9 -
" " "
9$ ! & " " " 7 8
P a g e | 4 " ! 7
.,))'.'6 "
)) ),%7 " /01However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.388222022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
: = 0 7 " 7 " " " "
$
>7 "" $
" " 7 ; (i5 ; "
P a g e | 5 45 9 7 45 9 " " 45 9 7 " 45 7
$ 45 9 "
0 ? >?
; " 7 $ 0:
45 9
45 " 78 "
$ " " "0 " " " /01 " 7
7 "7"
" + 0 " 7 " " $
" 7
" " " 2 ?
P a g e | 6 ). & "" < ))
" .
7 )**) ") @ 8 A& @ " A&