Arshdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-18.12.2024 Arshdeep Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

***** FIR NO.

DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES 230 06.10.2024 Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur 126(2), 221, 132, 121(1), 351(3), 351(1), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J .(Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

( 2 )

2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Bikkar Singh wherein it is alleged that he is working as a bus driver in PRTC. On 06.10.2024 when he was driving his bus towards Chandigarh and when the bus reached at near Roshanwala, then two young boys came on a motorcycle bearing No. PB-13BG-5410 in front of the bus and the complainant was somehow able to avoid a collision and thereafter the complainant snubbed them for their negligent act. However, the said persons dragged the complainant out of the bus. One of them was holding an 'iron punch' and gave beatings to the complainant. When the Conductor of the bus namely Jatinder Singh came forward to rescue him he was also inflicted injuries by the said persons. Upon making inquiries it surfaced that the person who was driving the motorcycle was Sanju Sharma and was accompanied by 4 more persons who had all surrounded bus and given beatings to the complainant as well as to Jatinder Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is nowhere named in the FIR and has been subsequently nominated without there being any credible evidence to connect him with the alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that in any case, it is a case of simple injury. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is not even owner of the motorcycle in question so as to connect him with the alleged occurrence.

4. Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, learned State counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State on account of an advance notice having been furnished, has opposed the petition and has submitted that co-accused had not only been negligent in driving but had also obstructed

( 3 ) public servant in performance of his duties and has also inflicted injuries to him. Learned State counsel submitted that the incident was also videographed by Conductor Jatinder Singh and from which the identity of the petitioner can clearly be discerned. Learned State counsel has also shown some print-outs taken from the video recording.

5. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions addressed before this Court.

6. Having regard to the nature of allegations and also the fact that the petitioner had been duly identified from the video recording stated to have been made by the other injured Jatinder, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition, as such is dismissed.

7. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of 10 days from today and moves an application for grant of regular bail, the learned trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within 3 days from filing of such application. 18.12.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No