SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Rajiv Chahal @ Rajiv Chail - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 2207 of 2019, 24258 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, J.S. Bedi, Advocate, Sanjeev Duggal, Advocate, M.S. Nagra, Advocate, Amit Shukla, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence and the consideration of the seriousness of the offense in bail applications.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 302, 307, 323, 353, 186, 283, 188, 160, 148, 149 IPC, Sections 25/57 of Arms Act, Sections 3(1)(t) & 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 2014 - The court discussed the various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and their application to the case. The court highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime and the seriousness of the offense in denying the bail applications.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a free fight between workers of Ambedkar Sena and Shiv Sena, resulting in the death of Yashwant Kumar. The court considered the statements of the complainants, FSL reports, and the nature of the altercation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime and that the seriousness of the offense warranted denial of bail at that stage.

Issues: The main issues included the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime, the nature of the altercation, and the seriousness of the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime, the seriousness of the offense, and the stage of the trial.

Final Decision: The bail applications were dismissed, with the option for the petitioners to file a bail petition after recording the statement of the injured and complainant.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in both these petitions is for grant of regular bail to petitioners Rajiv Chahal @ Rajiv Chail and Inderjit Karwal, in FIR No.77 dated 14.04.2018 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 353, 186, 283, 188, 160, 148, 149 IPC, Sections 25/57 of Arms Act, Sections 3(1)(t) & 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 2014, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to notice of the Court an order dated 15.03.2019 passed in CRM-M-48145-2018, vide which regular bail petition filed by co-accused Deepak Bhardwaj was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, by passing the following order: -

"Petitioner-Deepak Bhardwaj has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.77 dated 14.04.2018 registered under Sections 302, 307, 392, 323, 148, 149, 353, 186, 283, 295, 188, 160, 427 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(t), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 2014, 8-A and 8-B of the National Highway Act, 1956 (however, during investigation, Sections 8-A and 8-B have been deleted).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR was registered against 33 persons along with 100/150 unknown persons. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the followers of Ambedkar had installed Baba Sahib's Board on public land at Paper Chowk, Phagwara and changed the name from Paper Chowk to Savidhan Chowk. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that the followers of Shiv Sena were also gathered with deadly weapons and raised provocative and anti-religious slogans. Learned counsel also submits that during course of investigation, one of the injured, namely, Yashwant Kumar died on 29.04.2018 and thereupon, statement of injured Kulwinder Singh was recorded, wherein, it was stated that the death of Yashwant Kumar was on account of firing by four persons, namely, Deepak Bhardwaj (the present petitioner), Rajiv Chahal, Inderjit Karwal and Shivi Batta. The matter was investigated and three different challans were presented. The first challan was presented for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 283, 188, 160, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Poperty Act. The second challan was presented against the present petitioner under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(t), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the second challan, Kulwinder Kumar was cited as complainant. Said challan was presented against the persons, who were alleged to be the members of Shiv Sena. The third challan was presented under Sections 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the members of Ambedkar Sena. In the said challan, co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Jimmy Karwal was the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a case of version and cross version and it cannot be said at this stage as to which party was more aggressive. The opposite party i.e Ambedkar Sena had already been granted bail. The bail petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that he was involved in the commission of murder of Yashwant Kumar. Learned counsel also submits that deceased Yashwant Kumar died on account of gun shots being fired on him by four persons, namely, Inderjit Karwal, Deepak Bhardwaj (the present petitioner), Rajiv Chahal and Shivi Batta. There is no specific allegation as to whether shots fired either hit the deceased or the injured. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that after arrest, the recovery of .22 bore rev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top