Amandeep Singh @ Gainda v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47622-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2022 AMANDEEP SINGH@ GAINDA

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. BS Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Harwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the complainant. **** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this second petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.90 dated 24.05.2022, registered under Sections 308, 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 325 and 120-B IPC (added later on), at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa, the first one having been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Amritpal Singh, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court on 07.07.2022; that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing and that as far as other cases registered and/or pending against the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner stands acquitted in some cases and in others, he is on bail. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.06.2022. On the other hand, learned State counsel and the learned AMAN JAIN 2022.11.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmentt

CRM-M-47622-2022 (O&M) -2counsel for the complainant, while opposing the present petition, have made a specific reference to the order dated 08.09.2022, whereby 1st bail petition preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn, as the Court was not inclined to grant the relief as sought by the petitioner therein. They further submit that all the pleas, as raised herein, had been considered by this Court on 08.09.2022 and that there being no change in the circumstance and no new facts pleaded in the present petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is the second petition preferred by the petitioner seeking regular bail. While hearing the earlier bail petition, this Court had taken into consideration all the pleas, as raised herein and when this Court was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the same. It could not have been shown that the pleas raised herein, were not considered by this Court, while dealing with the earlier bail petition. In view of the above, this Court finds no indulgence is required to be given to the petitioner and the prayer for regular bail is rejected.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. 10.11.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.11.11 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmentt