The court emphasized the need for judicious consideration of the accused's role and circumstances, and the imposition of stringent conditions to address concerns about influencing the investigation and ensuring the safety of the victim and witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

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

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he is involved in

24 cases, however, out of said 24 cases, he is acquitted in 8 cases and cancellation report has been filed in 2 cases.

3. As per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner was taken in custody on 8.2.2022; however, because of Elections guidelines, since no candidate could be arrested without prior inquiry, he was released after recovery of the weapon from him. The petitioner also contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

4. While strenuously opposing the bail, the State and the complainant contend that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

5. The complainant Gurwinder Singh claims to be a close associate of Kamaljit Singh Karwal was contesting the elections for MLA from the Atamnagar constituency on a Congress ticket. On 7.2.2022 at 7-30 P.M., the complainant and Kamaljit Singh Karwal were going towards Gill Market, Shimlapuri. When they stopped their car near one office, the petitioner/accused - Simarjit Singh Bains, his son Ajaypreet Singh Bains and other associates, some armed with dangs, came to the office, raising lalkaras, pelted stones, and threw bottles towards them. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, Simarjit Singh Bains asked his son Ajaypreet Singh Bains that Kamaljit Singh Karwal is standing in the elections against him and should not be spared. On that, Ajaypreet Singh fired a shot from his revolver towards Kamaljit Singh Karwal, but his supporters saved him by taking him to his office. After that, Simarjit Singh Bains took a revolver from his son and fired toward the complainant to kill him and damaged their vehicle. They further raised lalkara that they would not be spared in the future. The reason for the attack was that earlier, a quarrel took place between the two groups because of pasting pamphlets. Simarjit Singh Bains had proclaimed that he is no less than Kamaljit Singh Karwal. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner did not follow any guidelines and instructions issued by the Election Commission and the police and behaved like goondas. Based on this, the police registered FIR mentioned above.

REASONING:

6. The complainant stated that around 100s of people were standing near the alleged place of the incident. In such a crowd, it is prima facie doubtful that the complainant would have heard the conversation between father and son or noticed handing over the revolver. Furthermore, nobody was injured in the alleged firing incident. Given the nature of the allegations and prior dispute between the parties, there is no justification for the pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner at this stage.

7. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he ha