Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshdeep Singh Alias Arsh vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2022
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
CRM-M No. 51153 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M No. 51153 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.4.2022
Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate for
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
CRM-13789-2022
1. The present application has been filed for preponing the date of hearing of main case.
2. For the reasons recorded in the application, the application is allowed. The main case is preponed, and, is taken up on board for hearing today.
CRM-13790-2022 The application is allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-2 to P-5, are taken on record.
CRM-M-51153-2021
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking the indulgence of regular bail, to the petitioner.
2. In FIR bearing No. 177 of 8.8.2019, registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar Rural, offences constituted under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, and, later on added Sections 326, 201, 34 IPC, are 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2022 17:56:27 ::: CRM-M No. 51153 of 2021 (O&M) -2- embodied.
3. The learned State counsel submits, that after completion of investigations into the FIR (supra), an affirmative report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has been instituted before the learned Magistrate concerned. However, the order, appended as Annexure P-3 to the petition, reveals that the learned trial Judge has drawn charges against the accused concerned, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 323, 201, 49 IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC, is not the one, qua which the charge has been framed against the accused concerned. The factum of an affirmative report cast under Section 173 Cr.P.C. becoming instituted by the investigating officer concerned, before the learned Magistrate concerned, does per se speak qua the investigations into the FIR concerned, having been concluded. Therefore, if there is cogent material on record, displaying that the accused, during the course of his facing police custody, did not ensure the making of recoveries of the incriminatory weapon of offence to the investigating officer concerned, thereupon, this Court may become inclined to not admit the bail petitioner to regular bail. However, since it is also stated, at the bar, by the learned State counsel, that the recovery of the relevant weapon has been effectuated, to the investigating officer concerned, by the present petitioner.
4. Moreover, when the judicial custody of the bail petitioner has commenced since the month of August, 2021, thereupon, it is not required to be proloned any longer, as, thereupons his personal liberty would become unnecessarily fettered, and, curtailed, despite the investigations being concluded into the FIR (supra), and, despite his rendering the completest co-operation to the investigating officer concerned.
5. However, the learned State counsel submits, that since the bail applicant-petitioner is a habitual offender, thereupon, in case the facility of bail 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2022 17:56:27 ::: CRM-M No. 51153 of 2021 (O&M) -3- is granted to him, thereupon, there is every likelihood of his re-indulging in penal activities.
6. However, the vigour of the afore made submission, of the learned State Counsel, before this Court, can be mitigated, by imposition of stringent conditions, upon the petitioner-bail applicant.
7. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed, and, the petitioner- bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody, if not required in any other case. However, the granting of bail to the bail applicant-petitioner, is subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to his not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, his not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, besides also his appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when directed to make his personal appearance. Further, subject to petitioner-bail applicant making an undertaking before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, that in case, he re-indulges in criminal activites, whereupon, on breach thereof, the order made today, shall become ipso facto anulled, and, that, upon, his being forthwith arrested by the investigating officer concerned, the latter shall produce the petitioner-bail applicant before the trial Court concerned, for the latter making an order for his being put to judicial custody.
8. Copy dasti.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
April 21, 2022
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2022 17:56:27 :::