Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.04.2022 Harwinder Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular bail' under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.02, dated 30.03.2019 (incorrectly mentioned as 30.09.2016), having been registered at Police Station SSOC, Mohali, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 20 UAP and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. On 01.04.2022 the following order had been passed by this court:-
!
"
#
$ % %
&& ' (
) ( #( %
*
#
(
#(+##
* ( #( # * ( *(
( ,-&
.(# ,
-2- /$*
#&(
/
0 )
# 1 # $
(
( (*
( ( #(
"
&(* #(
&(
( ( &$ /
#&(
/ /
(&# #
$* (, #(
$ (# ,
*(& /
&
(
2
%%
&& '
(& ( "$(
& &) * (
(
#&(
/ &&
&$/
$/ (&# #
$3 Today an affidavit dated 18.04.2022 has been filed in court by learned State counsel, again executed by the AIG, Intelligence, District SAS Nagar. It is stated in that affidavit (in response to the query of this court), that upon the case again having been examined by the said officer, it was found that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement made by him and that there is no other evidence available on the case file to establish his link with the aforementioned Ranjit Singh (in the last order). That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners' case would be no different from that of his co-accused Sultan Singh, Lovepreet Singh, Karamjit Singh, Daler Singh @ Bunty and Gurpreet Singh @ Preet, who have already been admitted to bail by this court (co-ordinate Bench) on different dates as per the copies of the orders annexed with CRM-7805 of 2022. The order passed in the case of accused Lovepreet Singh and
-3Karamjit Singh (in CRM-M Nos.25289 and 25496 of 2020, decided on 28.09.2020) reads as follows:- "4(
( &&
#
$ #(//( (
/ ( ( / .% $ (
( ( &&
5 6#
.%'(
! ! 7
8 9 (:&*&#
5
(6# 7;85/ /
6 ( <(/ #
(&# (=> '(& ?
#(
& (
*& $ ( &
/
#&&( *
#( #(
( * (& $( )(* )() ( ( (
* / * &$
5 6
#
#(/ $ *
%
$
(
8 9 (:&*&#
5
(6# 7;8 ( 8
(
( &*&#
*
( #
#(&&
/ ( 9
(#(
#$*# (( (&$ ( & (#(#
#(/ (* /&&$ (
/ / (
(
(@ ( $ * / &$
( ( *
(/ *(/ #(
$ *
( #( $ / / ($ && &(@ (. && # (
(&$ & $ #
$ # ! ! 7 ?
#(
& *&
/ &$ (
&
/
$*
(
#(
$*
(/ / ( #
(/ #(+ ##
/ &$
A
& A4 $ *(* &
(&
(&$(
#((#(
#$
-4-
( $ #
$ # ! ! 7
&&
/ /
( &##( &$
(5 6 &&(*
(
&
(&( (&(
$(
# ((#(#
> B #&
1 $
3 Consequently, since the petitioner is arraigned as an accused only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by himself in police custody, even in terms of Section 43-D (5) & (6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
However, naturally, as regards the trial itself it would proceed on the basis of actual evidence led before the trial court. April 20, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No