Mehtab Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 08.11.2024 Mehtab Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.132 dated 02.10.2024 under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act and 111 of BNS (Section 27 of Arms Act deleted and 25 of Arms Act and Section 111 of BNS were added) registered at Police Station Division No.2 District Pathankot. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case concerning the alleged supply of illegal arms. While drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR annexed as Annexure P-1, it has been contended by the learned counsel that there is no reference to the petitioner either in the initial secret information received by the police or even in the FIR itself. It has been further submitted that only alleged recovery from the petitioner is a .12 bore rifle, which also he voluntarily surrendered to the

-2police. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case based solely on the disclosure statement purportedly made by co-accused Deepak Malhotra, which holds limited evidentiary value.

Learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has been in custody since his arrest on 04.10.2024 and the investigation is still pending, which clearly indicate that the trial would take considerable time to conclude. Furthermore, it has been urged that no further recovery is pending from the petitioner, his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions, has not disputed that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the secret information or in the FIR and that his implication in the present case is based solely on the disclosure statement suffered by the co accused. Learned State counsel has also not disputed the custody period of the petitioner. However, learned State counsel, on instructions has submitted that the recovery of .12 bore alongwith 6 live cartridges were recovered from the petitioner on the day of his arrest. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

The petitioner has now been in custody for over a month since his arrest on 04.10.2024. Moreover, as acknowledged by the learned State counsel, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement allegedly suffered by

-3the co-accused. The petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case of similar nature.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

08.11.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No