Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 May 2011
- Bench
- ALOK SINGH
Outcome
Allowed
Present petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307
- Arms Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Charan Jit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. K.S. Bassi, Advocate, for the complainant.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.27 dated 7.3.2011 under Sections 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54 Arms Act, Police Station Malout City, District Muktsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that role attributed to the petitioner is raising lalkara and petitioner is not said to have caused any injury. Petitioner is not said to be carrying any weapon. Learned counsel further states that main accused Gurvel Singh, who has caused firearm injury, has already been arrested and weapon of offence has also been recovered from the main accused. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI Paramjit Singh, who is personally present in the Court, states that only role attributed to the petitioner is raising lalkara and petitioner was not found having fired any shot.
Operative part
He further states that main accused, who has fired the shot and has caused firearm injury, has already been arrested and weapon of offence i.e. gun in question has already been recovered from the accused. He further states that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. CRM No. M-10109 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Mr. K.S. Bassi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the bail application. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 126, has observed that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. Once prosecution agency is not demanding custodial interrogation and role attributed to the petitioner is raising lalkara, therefore, denial of anticipatory bail would be harsh to the petitioner. Present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing personal bond and two surety bonds of Rs.20,000/- each subject to the following conditions: - i) ii) iii) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. It is made clear that in the event of violation of any of the conditions, prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. May 18, 2011 R.S. (Alok Singh) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Present petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 307; Arms Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 18 May 2011. The bench was ALOK SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.