Jagdev Singh@ Jagga@Jagdev Singh Dhaliwal v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39264-2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2024 Jagdev Singh @ Jagga @ Jagdev Singh Dhaliwal ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ****
Present:
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ J.
1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134, dated 04.07.2024, under Sections 126(2), 140(3), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 324(4), 191(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nayaa Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station City Moga, District Moga.
2.
Succinctly the facts of the case are that the complainant, namely, Harmeet Singh lodged an FIR with the police wherein it was alleged that he had studied up to 10+2. On 03.07.2024, he along with his uncle's son, namely, Sonu was sitting pillion on his motor cycle and were going to bring milk from the shop. On the way, one black Scorpio UP
number, one Scorpio number PB 9095, one grey Innova and one Swift car came in which 30-35 youngsters came from behind. From the black Scorpio, Jagdev Singh @ Jagga empty handed, Ravinder armed with Khanda, Rajvir @ Lado armed with Iron Khanda came out and then Jagdev Singh @ Jagga exhorted to catch them and teach them a lesson. Jagdev Singh @ Jagga caught hold him from the back side and Ravinder & Rajvir @ Lado dragged him and threw him inside the black Scorpio. They all were in drunken condition and compelling him to make a call. He was thus abducted by them and taken to new grain market. He was thrown out of the Scorpio in the grain market. Jagdev Singh @ Jagga gave him khanda blow from the reverse side on his thigh.
They asked him to make a call to younger brother, namely, Manpreet and then Jagdev Singh @ Jagga gave him iron khanda blow on his left thumb. His mobile phone was also taken away by them forcibly. He raised alarm and then they left him in the injured condition. Thereafter his brother, namely, Manpreet Singh arranged one vehicle and got him admitted in the Civil Hospital, Moga for the treatment. Request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. It was contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the parties have compromised and thus, the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.
However on hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the same vide his order dated 31.07.2024. Hence being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended before this Court that there was an old enmity between both the parties and hence the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that as there was earlier a dispute between both the sides and hence there being a motive for false implication of the petitioner, no prima facie case for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is made out. He has submitted that the parties have amicably resolved their outstanding issues and thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 4.
Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have amicably resolved their differences and thus he has no objection if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner. 5.
However learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender, who is involved in 12 other cases of similar nature. He submits that the case is of serious nature and the compromise as contented before this Court deserves to be rejected. He has submitted that no case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, so the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant wherein the specific allegations regarding the abduction of complainant and snatching of his mobile phone along with the co-accused have been made in
the FIR. The petitioner, as submitted before this Court, is involved in 12 other case and thus, he is an habitual offender. The investigation is at threshold.
8.
Though it has been contended before this Court that the parties have compromised the matter, however keeping in view the gravity of offence, the Court out-rightly rejects the compromise as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9.
! "
#$
!
"
#
$
(i)
"
(ii)
$
%
"
& "
$
$ &
&
' &
$
()
% & " ' (
!"
"
'"
"
) *
"
#$ *(+
&
&
&
$
( ,
#
#
$
&
$
(
-
( .
$
/
"
0
$
( .
$
$ $ $
&
( .
/
#
#
1
$ $
$
2
2
$ #
$
( .
$ ! (
& ! 456 * ! 7
$
$
! $ ! 8*4
( +
( :
#
( $
$
#
(
)' (
"
# $%& %
%
#$ 5(
-+
$ $ $
! 8*9
( +
#
$ $ ( !
$
# $ $
( ;
$
( .
$
&
( .
$
$ #
$
(
+ ,
"
'
-
.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 13.08.2024 rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No