Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka vs State Of Punjab on 24 July, 2023
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:093532
2023:PHHC:093532
104+210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25864-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.07.2023
Amanpreet Singh @ Rinka ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present : Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S.Sandhu, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
*****
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL)
CRM-48273-2022
1. This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main case.
2. Since, the main case is fixed for today itself for hearing, therefore, the present application has rendered infructuous.
3. Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. CRM-M-25864-2021
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No.264 dated 03.06.2018 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, (Sections 201 and 473 IPC and Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act were added subsequently) at Police Station Civil Lines, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2023 00:21:53 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:093532 2023:PHHC:093532
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. The petitioner is not involved in the crime as alleged against him. Even as per the story of the prosecution, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was doing recce and was standing outside the place of occurrence and that there is nothing against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2018. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, being instructed by ASI Ajay Kumar Sharma, has submitted that the petitioner is directly named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are as many as 20 cases against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail pending trial.
4. Since, the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and there are allegations of his participation in the crime in the statement of the eye- witness as well, therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant concession of bail pending trial to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
JUDGE
24.07.2023
adhikari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:093532 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2023 00:21:53 :::