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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Kirpal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-7574-2022
Decided On : 28-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, With; Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.; Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.; Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, With; Mr. Rishan Jain, Advocate, for the Complainant.

The decision emphasized the importance of proving allegations during trial, the completion of investigation, and the cautionary approach in granting bail, considering the likelihood of a prolonged trial.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 1860, Sections 307, 506, 109, 34, 120-B, Arms Act 1959, Sections 25, 27

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a case involving FIR No.225 dated 30.10.2021, which included charges under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. The petitioner was alleged to be part of a conspiracy leading to an incident where victims suffered firearm injuries.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's involvement was based on the statement of one witness, which was yet to be proved during the trial. As the investigation was over and the challan had been presented, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, with a caution that the bail would be reviewed if the petitioner failed to maintain the undertaking given.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged conspiracy involvement, the reliability of the witness statement, and the need for bail considering the stage of the trial and the petitioner's undertaking not to influence the trial or witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the fact that the petitioner's involvement was based on a single witness statement yet to be proved, the completion of the investigation, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to the restricted working of the Courts during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Final Decision: The Court directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, with a caution that the bail would be reviewed if the petitioner failed to maintain the undertaking given.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.225 dated 30.10.2021 registered under Sections 307, 506, 109, 34 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been roped in the present FIR only on the basis of the statement of one Gurjant Singh according to which, the petitioner is part of the conspiracy, which led to the incident, which took place on 29.10.2021 wherein, co-accused namely Karamjit Singh @ Karma had used firearm tocause injuries to the victims. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that first of all, statement of Gurjant Singh is such that it does not state whether, the petitioner instigated the co-accused so as to direct the said co-accused to give effect to the incident, which happened on 29.10.2021 as to inflict injury upon the victims and even otherwise, initially, when the said statement of Gurjant Singh was appreciated during investigation by a DSP level Officer, the petitioner was not found involved in any conspiracy but later on when the same statement was taken into consideration by a Special Investigation Team, the petitioner was found to be involved in the said case being conspirator, which led to the incident, which took place on 29.10.2021 wherein, two sons of the complainant got injured by the use of firearm at the hands of co-accused namely Karamjit Singh @ Karma. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact, the petitioner has been involved due to the political rivalry and status, which he carries and even the incident, which took place on 29.10.2021, was on account of elections to the Cooperative Society and the petitioner was roped in by the complainant party, being a member of the opposite political camp and as the petitioner is behind the bars since 07.01.2022, he may kindly be extended the benefit of regular bail as the investigation is already over and challan has been presented.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, who is also present in the Court, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of thecomplainant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State argues that in the present case, the investigation has been undertaken by a Special Investigation Team and after noticing all the relevant material facts including the statement of Gurjant Singh, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner was found to be that of a conspirator and the challan has already been presented in the competent Court of law and therefore, assertion of the petitioner that he has done no wrong, cannot be believed and the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail may kindly be declined.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that in fact, the petitioner is the one due to whom the incident took place on 29.10.2021, which fact is clear from the statement of Gurjant Singh wherein, he has stated that the petitioner imparted instructions to the co-accused to take care of the victims as they were exceeding their limits and creating political hurdles for them, due to which, the party to which the petitioner belonged, had lost Elections of the said Cooperative Society. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that reliance being placed by the petitioner on the report of the DSP carries no weight when the same was already considered by a Special Investigation Team, which found that the petitioner was involved in conspiracy for the execution of the incident which took place on 29.10.2021 wherein, two victims have suffered firearm inj

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top