Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2017

Author: Ramendra Jain

Bench: Ramendra Jain

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.


210                                        CRM-M-43025-2017
                                           Date of Decision: 20.11.2017.


Ranjit Singh                                          ....Petitioner.

                           Versus

State of Punjab                                       ....Respondent.

                            ***


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
                ----


Present:       Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Ms. Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                           ****

Ramendra Jain, J.(Oral)

Through this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.146 dated 25.08.2017 registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 427, 148, 109, 149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.

According to the prosecution, a car, in which five persons, namely, Satpal Singh, Mithu Singh, Harwinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Parsa Ram were travelling, was searched in routine and chilly powder alongwith some objectionable items were recovered from the persons aforesaid. During investigation, they disclosed the name of the petitioner, being one of the member of committee consisting of 45 members, formed to save Gurmit Ram Rahim, self-styled religious Guru, to go into custody, after pronouncement of the judgment in a rape case against him, at Panchkula, as 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2017 04:28:35 ::: -2- a director, which had given directions to the petitioner to create ruckus in the general masses and disturb law and order situation to distract the attention of the police authorities and civil administration.

Learned counsel inter-alia contends that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. He has falsely been implicated on the statement of co-accused. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposed the bail to the petitioner submitting that two more cases bearing F.I.R. No.92 dated 25.08.2017 under Sections 454, 380, 436, 427, 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pertaining to Police Station Chhajli and F.I.R. No.147 dated 25.08.2017 under Section 454, 379B, 436, 186, 353, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 4/5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pertaining to Police Station Dirba are pending against him in which the petitioner is on bail.

Considering over all facts and circumstances, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted regular bail, during the trial, subject to his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.





                                                           (RAMENDRA JAIN)
                                                               JUDGE
20.11.2017
jitender sharma



                  Whether speaking/ reasoned        :      Yes/ No

                  Whether Reportable                :      Yes/ No




                                     2 of 2
                  ::: Downloaded on - 22-11-2017 04:28:36 :::