Malkeet Singh @ Nawab v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 28.08.2023
Pronounced on: 31.08.2023 Malkeet Singh @ Nawab ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 13.11.2021 Civil Lines, Batala, District Batala 307, 506, 120-B IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act 1.
The peƟƟoner incarcerated in the FIR capƟoned above, has come up before this Court under SecƟon 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2.
In note 3 of the bail peƟƟon, the accused declares that he has following criminal antecedents.
Sr. No.
FIR Year/Dated SecƟons Police StaƟon 1.
25 of Arms Act GRP District Amritsar 2.
307 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act SSOC District Amritsar 3.
25/54/59 of Arms Act Bhogpur 4.
392 IPC Kartarpur, District Jalandhar 5.
307, 34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act Mehta, District Amritsar 6.
394 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act Ranggarh Nangal Police District Batala 7.
25, 25(1-A) Arms Act and 21, 22 of NDPS Act Beas, District Amritsar 8.
01.04.2022 307, 353, 186, 506 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act Mehta, District Amritsar Rural
3.
Counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that the peƟƟoner seeks bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Kushal Sharma @ Kushal, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2022 passed in CRM-M-46812-2022. The peƟƟoner contends that the pre-trial incarceraƟon would cause an irreversible injusƟce to the peƟƟoner and family.
4.
While opposing bail, the contenƟons on behalf of the State are that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:
5.
In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail peƟƟon of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the anƟthesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First InformaƟon Reports, wherein the bail peƟƟoner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecuƟons resulƟng in acquiƩal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecuƟon stands withdrawn, or prosecuƟon filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
6.
The peƟƟoner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The peƟƟon does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior. 7.
As per prosecuƟon story the FIR was got registered by complainant Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi that he along with Dikshit Kumar had gone to Mohalla Gobind Nagar, Kahnuwan Road, Batala in a Scorpio bearing registraƟon No. PB-18-V-7000 for aƩending a funcƟon. AŌer the funcƟon, at about 10.30 PM 4 persons came on 2 motorcycles. Out of the 4 persons peƟƟoner and one Avtar Singh were named by the complainant by staƟng, he was known to them. PeƟƟoner had raised lalkara by insƟgaƟng co-accused to teach a lesson for not giving extorƟon money in the name of Harry Chatha. ThereaŌer, peƟƟoner as well as his co-accused Avtar Singh fired upon the complainant and Dikshit Kumar which hit the Scorpio vehicle of the complainant, however, no injury was suffered by complainant or his accompliance in the present case 8.
A perusal of the bail peƟƟon and the documents aƩached, primafacie points
towards the peƟƟoner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither enƟtled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceraƟon or on parity because Kushal Sharma is not named in FIR. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the peƟƟoner; this court refrains from doing so. 9.
Any observaƟon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. The peƟƟon is dismissed. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the peƟƟoner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceraƟon, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecuƟon evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining Ɵme to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direcƟons in this regard.
It is clarified that if expediƟng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by menƟoning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condiƟon that neither the peƟƟoner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tacƟcs to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediƟng the trial shall stand automaƟcally recalled by resorƟng to SecƟon 362, read with SecƟon 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to aƩend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law.
It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date menƟoned above, and if the delay is not aƩributable to the peƟƟoner, then the peƟƟoner may file an applicaƟon for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expediƟously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 31.08.
Yes Whether reportable:
No.