The court's decision to grant bail with stringent conditions was influenced by the absence of direct attribution of the firing to the petitioner, the petitioner's first-time offender status, and the legal principles emphasizing the need for bail conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 198 09.12.2020 Central, Sector 17, UT, Chandigarh 397, 307, 511 IPC and sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 and section 120-B added later on.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. In Para 18 of the bail application, the petitioner declares no criminal history.

2.a The brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2020, the police recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he runs a gold testing unit in Sector 23C, Chandigarh. On 09.12.2020 at about 2:15 PM, petitioner-Rohit Puri, who is known to his brother and works as a goldsmith in Sector 15, made a phone call that his companions wants to get some metal tested. They stated that they were coming around 3:00 P.M. Subsequently, petitioner alongwith three other persons reached his testing shop. While they were interacting, one of his companions raised a pistol and another handed over a bag and asked to put all articles in the bag. When the complainant party raised protest, then one of Rohit's companion shot bullet which hit against left side back below the shoulder of the brother of the complainant. After that they ran away from the spot. Based on this, the police registered the FIR as mentioned above.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Learned State counsel strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that if the Court is inclined to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioner that should be on stringent conditions.

REASONING:

5. The prosecution does not attribute the firing upon petitioner. After firing, when the accused allegedly flea, the petitioner was not found in their company and out of those three accused, one was shot and killed by another.

The State has not presented any substantial argument that the accused was in the company of other three when, one of them was killed by other two.

This distinguishes the role and participation of the accused from the other accused. Coupled with this, a reference to Para 9 to 12 of the petition primafacie makes out a case for bail.

6. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats this offence or commits any offence under NDPS Act, Arms Act, or where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, then State should consider applying for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasth