Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-36691-2019 (O & M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36691-2019 (O & M) Date of Decision:10.09.2019 Gurdeep Singh @ Bhinda

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

*** MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.81 dated 02.09.2013, under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar.

FIR was registered on the statement of Navjot Singh wherein it was alleged that on 02.09.2013 his brother Gurpreet Singh along with sister Pawandeep Kaur were returning home on motorcycle bearing No.PB-08CE-7662 after taking medicine and the complainant was following with his friend Gurjeet Singh on his separate motorcycle. When they reached near the crossing of Bhalowal, then from the front side a white colour vehicle (Scorpio) came and the driver stopped the vehicle all of a sudden. Gurdeep Sheetal Gawri 2019.09.30 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-36691-2019 (O & M) -2- @ Bhinda (petitioner) along with other accused persons alighted, who were armed with pistol, dattar, toka, Kirpan etc. and encircled Gurpreet and Pawandeep Kaur. Gurdeep @ Bhinda fired a shot from his pistol towards the brother of the complainant. However, he escaped and thereafter they all caused injuries upon the brother of the complainant with sharp edged weapon and baseball bat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the concession of regular bail was extended to the petitioner, who was regularly attending the Court but later on he was involved in some other criminal case and could not attend the trial proceedings. According to him, trial Court declared him as Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 28.09.2017. He submits that now petitioner is in custody since November, 2018. He further submits that further custody of the petitioner may not be justified. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner is involved in at least 11 cases and some of them are of similar nature i.e. punishable under Section 307 IPC. Considering the above background, this Court does not find any reason to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Resultantly, petition is dismissed.

10.09.2019 (MANOJ BAJAJ) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Sheetal Gawri 2019.09.30 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh