Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.10.2023 Gagandeep Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the complainant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0118 dated 17th of May, 2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 379-B(2), 325, 323, 341, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Patran, District Patiala, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.
2.
As per the allegations levelled in the FIR it has been alleged as under :
"
!!
!" #!! !$ % %
& '(
)*
!
!!
(!"& +, -.- ,/ *&0&
* 2 !!
) '2 & 3,
4 % 4 / 5 %
( & 6 ,
/ 4 % 5 %
#!!
$1$!&
( !!
1/
!!
/ (
1
$
!! 47 5!
$1$! 8& 9 2!
!/ ! 9!$ /
(
!! 3, !
$
!! #!
:
*.0&0& , ) '2 & ,!1 % $ $!,
, $ 1
/ ,
!1 ;
,
/
$ ( $ 1 (( $ !
( $ ,
! </ $ !
1 ,,
& + (
$
$
,
$ !!
!
$
(
$
1/ $ " $
=( % > = </
1 1,
!!
1 ?2 2?
/
(
/
'( % > ' !
< ( % ! < 2/ $,! 1 (&
!(/ '(
! $
/ (,
($
1!/ ,(
/ ,
$
!
7,/ < $, 1 < ( %
,(
!
$
! !
!
!
!1 , ( , ,(
!
, (
1 ! ,(
$
! /
1 / < ( % '( % ,
(,
($ /
(
,
(,/ 1 $ 1
( 1 % $
( !/
' $ ,
, ,(
(,& ,$$,/ @
!
!1/ 1 $
$!
9 ! &
$$, 1/ 1 $
, 1 $,$ 1 3$
! ! / (! (!
!
1 $
/ $
1, ($
%1
4!
= / ! / ! !
$ ,!
$$,& %.) 9!7 % 1 4 %1
4!
$$&A
3.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
4.
Role of the petitioner has come in the short reply file by way of affidavit of Daljit Singh Virk, PPS, DSP, Sub Division Patran, dated 26th of September, 2023 wherein it has been found that the injury attributed to the petitioner has been found to be grievous.
5.
As per settled law petitioner is required to make out a case for invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, Apex Court has held that :- "..That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being
secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail...." (emphasis supplied) 6.
Likewise while reiterating the law laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra) Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (5) SCC 1 held that :- "(4) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it." 7.
In view of the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of prearrest of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
October 18, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No