Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh @ Vikramjeet Singh @ ... vs State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2015
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-22602-2015
Date of decision:23.7.2015
Bikramjit Singh @ Vikramjeet Singh @ Vicky World
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
Petitioner seeks bail pending trial in FIR No.292 dated 4.8.2014 registered under Sections 307, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act (later on challan filed under Sections 307/326/148/149 IPC and under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act) at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar City.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery has been effected. Petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor any allegation was levelled against him. He further submits that since the trial is at the initial stage, conclusion thereof will take pretty long time. He prays for allowing the present petition.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar City, submits that a gun was recovered from the petitioner, although in another MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2015.07.23 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticty of this document. CRM-M-22602-2015 -2- case. He further submits that a fire arm injury was suffered by the injured but not at the hands of the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the present petition, contending that since challan has already been presented before the learned court, trial will not take long time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the instant case, petitioner has been found entitled for bail pending trial. It is so said, because neither the petitioner has been found named in the impugned FIR nor any allegation of causing any injury to the injured has been levelled against the petitioner. Recovery of gun from the petitioner in a different case will not ipso facto implicate him in the present case. Further since the trial is at the initial stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has been found justified in contending that the conclusion of trial will take long time.
In view of the above and without commenting anything further on merits at this stage, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Disposed of, accordingly.
23.7.2015 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
2015.07.23 17:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticty of this document.