Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Jaskaran Singh Alias Karan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-20819 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-03-2022
Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana., for the Respondent.
The main legal point established is that the lack of the petitioner's name in the FIR, absence of recovery from the petitioner, and the recovery of the licensed weapon at the instance of the petitioner influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under sections 384, 386, 506, 34, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, based on the petitioner not being named in the FIR, lack of recovery from the petitioner, and the recovery of the licensed weapon at the instance of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges of demanding ransom, threatening the complainant, and possession of a weapon, based on allegations and a disclosure statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, noting that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no recovery was to be made from the petitioner, and the recovery at the instance of the petitioner was of his licensed weapon.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in the case, the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, and the opposition by the State counsel based on the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner not being named in the FIR, lack of recovery from the petitioner, and the recovery of the licensed weapon at the instance of the petitioner, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, as the trial conclusion was likely to take time.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - Petitioner is seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 257 dated 28.10.2021, under sections 384, 386, 506, 34, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Garhi, District Jinda (Haryana).
2. As per the allegations of complainant- Jaswinder Singh on 19th October, 2021, received a call demanding ransom. The mobile number from which call was made was mentioned in the FIR. On 26th October, 2021, unknown persons on motorcycle with muffled faces stop the complainant and his wife and threatened them for not paying the ransom amount. Accused was allegedly carrying weapon like a pistol type. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he was having a licensed weapon which he gave to co-accused Gurwinder and it was used by co-accused for threatening the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR. It is a case of false implication. Petitioner was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement. The contention is that there is no evidentary value of the disclosure statement. It is further argued that investigation is complete, no further recovery is to be made.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the pistol was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.
5. The observations made hereinafter are only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.
6. Petitioner was not named in the FIR, his name surfaced in disclosure statement. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. It would not be out of place to mention that recovery at the instance of the petitioner was of his licensed weapon. Petitioner is in custody since 2.11.2021 though investigation is complete, conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. The petition is allowed.
8. Since the main case has been decided, the pending application, if any is rendered infructuous.
