Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Varinderpal Singh @ Vicky - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Cr M M No. 30646 of 2021
Decided On : 06-08-2021
Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate, Monika Jalota, Advocate, Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate
The decision to grant bail was based on the lack of recovery from the petitioner and the completion of investigation, indicating that keeping the petitioner behind bars would serve no useful purpose.
Headnote:
Bail - Arms Act - Summary: The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC 1860 and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner's involvement was based on the allegation that he had kept the weapon in safe custody, but no recovery was made from the petitioner. The court considered the completion of investigation and the likelihood of trial taking time, and granted bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC 1860 and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner's name surfaced in a statement regarding the recovery of a pistol, but no recovery was made from the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering that no recovery was made from the petitioner and the only allegation against the petitioner was that he had kept the weapon in safe custody. The court also noted the completion of investigation and the likelihood of trial taking time.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving serious allegations under the Arms Act, considering the lack of recovery from the petitioner and the completion of investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the fact that no recovery was made from the petitioner, and the only allegation against the petitioner was that he had kept the weapon in safe custody. Additionally, the court considered the completion of investigation and the likelihood of trial taking time.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This is a petition seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 145 dated 25.6.2019 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC 1860 (Section 120-B added lateron) and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.
3. It is a case of blind murder of Gurmej Singh. During investigation, Jashanpreet Singh was arrested, on statement of Ranjit Singh to the effect that there was an extra-judicial confession made by Jashanpreet Singh regarding attack by him and his companion. After arrest Jashanpreet Singh disclosed that he had taken pistol from one Arshdeep Singh. During interrogation Arshdeep Singh disclosed that he brought pistol from the house of Varinderpal Singh @ Vicky to whom he had given pistol for safe custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pistol was recovered from Jashanpreet Singh, no recovery was made from the petitioner. Name of the petitioner surfaced in disclosure statement. Investigation is complete and challan stands presented.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. She on instructions from SI Anokh Singh submits that the allegations are serious. She further argues that the petitioner was custodian of an illegal weapon.
6. Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate appears for the complainant though not impleaded as party. He vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the contention raised by learned State counsel.
7. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the statement of Arshdeep Singh. No recovery was made from the petitioner. Only allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept the weapon in safe custody on asking of Arshdeep Singh. Investigation is complete. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is in custody since 7.4.2021. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. Bail is granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. The petition is allowed.
9. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
