Bhupinder Kumar @ Sanju Pandit v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 03.11.2023 BHUPINDER KUMAR @ SANJU PANDIT .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:
Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1.
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the second time under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.122, dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 302, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no active role has been attributed to the petitioner as is evident from the perusal of FIR, which is narrated as under:-
!
"#
$%"&%'(%&&&
)
+ +
+
+ !*
",
+ +
+ +
+ !*
!
+ -
.
!
+
' '
-2- + -
+
*
+ *
/
0" &, "&"& !*
*
!
+
!
&%1#&2+
!*
)
3
+
!*
+ -
4
35 + -'6"'7'"&$6 +
!
+
!
3
+
+
6606"',$&(8 !*
+
* 3
+-
*
+
&01#& 72
0# &, "&"&
+
+
9 + !*
+
+ :;:
4
9
+
2
* .
+
&"1#&72
+
+
!*
< 2 -
4
+-
+
= +
+
+
< 2 -
+ !*
+
+
+
+
-3- = +
+
+
+
+
#"- + 3
+ -
=
- + -
3
+ +
9
+
+ !*
.
2
=
-
;
= * = + = +
- 2
-
!
!
+ * +
*
!
+
!
2
<
< !
<
2
2
.
-
- <
-
!
0" &, "&"& 001&&2
!
+
!
+
- !*
!*
+
* +
-
2
-
=
!
= +
- !
+
!
< 2
2
-
-
-4- +
*
3
) + - +-
!
-
-
'
-
!
0# &, "&"&
) )=>
+ 7)2
7)
08"% =< ;
8$0(( <*
-'0#'74'80"& *
<
0&0
-
-
+ +-
.
2
!
!
7 +
+
+
7
#&" 8"6 08$ 08% 0"&'-
",,8,%
7
2
-
=
!
= +
- !
+
!
< 2
2
-
-
+
08"%
!
7
?).
.
) )=> +
+
-
)
* ) -
#1&& 2 '
!
0# &, "&"& 7
*
?).
-5-
>
= 08"%
)
=> !
?).
= 7*
"8#
)
'
@ 3.
On the strength of assertion made in the FIR as well as subsequent investigation of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner even on perusal of medical evidence on record. He also asserts that the petitioner has already spent reasonable time i.e., approximately 3 1⁄2 years in custody and as such, merely to fill in the lacunae, a pistol has been shown to be got recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which actually does not belong to him at all. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record, to demonstrate that he has suffered incarceration for a period of 3 years, 4 months and 27 days. He prays for dismissal of the present petition urging that the petitioner was present at the spot where the occurrence took place along with Gurwinder Singh @ Mani, Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi, Harpal Singh @ Pali, Harbant Singh @ Sammi @ Harry, Gurjit Singh @ Saini and Lakwinder Singh @ Lakhi, out of whom three persons went on the motorcycle to inform at the house of the deceased Lovepreet.
5.
On a query putforth by this Court, learned State counsel after having instructions from ASI Amrit Lal submits that there was a head injury on the body of the deceased, which has been caused with weapon i.e., daah, which is known to be very sharp edged weapon but cannot ascertain any fire-
-6arm injury on the body of the deceased after examining the file available with the police official present in Court but on the examination of the postmortem report, cause of death has been mentioned as Brain Hemorrhage. 6.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7.
This Court is duly convinced that the petitioner though may have been shown to be in possession of one pistol, which actually got recovered from him as per Investigating Agency but that weapon has not been used in the commissioning of offence and at present role of the petitioner and any kind of other involvement, if any supported by incriminating material is to be ascertained by way of leading evidence before the trial Court. 8.
!
!
" #
$
% & '
$
&
-7- (
$
&
)* + #
$
,
##
-
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 03.11.2023 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 4 / ;