Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1130 (PNJ)

Jagtar Singh @ Gola v. State of Punjab

2012-09-03

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.7 dated 25.01.2010, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC, registered at police station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Sessions Judge, Rupnagar dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-Jagtar Singh @Gola that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that he has been arrested in this case just on the statement of co-accused, Harinder Singh and that even as per the alleged statement of Harinder Singh, petitioner had caught hold of the deceased while injuries were caused by co-accused. It is further submitted that though complainant has not named him in the complaint and however, now he has improved his version in the Court and stated that present petitioner-accused caught hold the deceased from his left arm while injuries were caused by co-accused. It is further contended that he has been continuing in custody since 29.01.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only six out of twenty six witnesses have been examined. It has also contended that moreover, the allged eye-witness including the complainant has already been examined. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-Sandeep Singh @Sippy that though he has been named in the FIR and however, no specific role has been attributed to him and that the complainant has improved his version by deposing that he had caught hold of the deceased from right arm while injuries were caused by co-accused. It is further contended that he has been continuing in custody since 23.03.2010. 5. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. However, bail application has been opposed on the plea that petitioners-accused have committed serious offence and that name of petitioner-Sandeep Singh @Sippy has been mentioned in the FIR and that he had come with co-accused, who was armed with deadly weapons and hence, he was sharing the common intention to commit murder of Netar Singh. However, bail application has been opposed on the plea that petitioners-accused have committed serious offence and that name of petitioner-Sandeep Singh @Sippy has been mentioned in the FIR and that he had come with co-accused, who was armed with deadly weapons and hence, he was sharing the common intention to commit murder of Netar Singh. It is further submitted that so far as Jagtar Singh @Gola is concerned that though his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and however, there were some unknown persons present alongwith the co-accused and that particulars of those unknown persons have been given by co-accused. However, she has admitted that there is no other evidence against petitioner-Jagtar Singh @Gola. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner- Jagtar Singh @Gola is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. Hence, in view of these facts, so far as the bail application of petitioner-Jagtar Singh @Gola is concerned, he has not been named in the FIR and he has been named just on the statement of co-accused and as the main witnesses have already been examined, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner-accused, Jagtar Singh @Gola in custody. 8. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Jagtar Singh @Gola is allowed. 9. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. 10. However, so far as the bail application filed on behalf of Sandeep Singh @Sippy is concerned, he was specifically named in the FIR and he had come with co-accused and attacked the deceased though injuries were caused by co-accused. 11. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that petitioner-accused, Sandeep Singh @Sippy is not entitled for concession of bail. The same is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.