Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2661 (PNJ)

Vikramjeet @ Vicky v. State of Haryana

2018-07-02

HARI PAL VERMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:(Oral)- Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.276 dated 22.10.2017 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 285, 307, 341, 427, 506 IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has surrendered before the police on 16.04.2018 and since then he is in custody. Even otherwise as per the FIR version, a mob of 14-15 persons has come to the fields of Amritpal Singh – complainant. The complainant was sitting in his car on road near his fields on 22.10.2017 when the petitioner along with Manga Singh son of Jagsir Singh and his relative Cheena and other persons came on the road in front of the complainant and raised lalkaras. They fired in the air and abused. Other persons broke three glasses of the vehicle by stroke of sticks. When the complainant tried to ran away, the accused fired upon the vehicle, which hit on the back side of the vehicle. He submits that no injury was caused to anybody. 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Anil Kumar, does not dispute the custody of the petitioner. However, he argued that as the weapon used in the offence is yet to be recovered, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. So far the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, nobody is stated to be injured in the present case. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2018 and the trial in the case will take sufficiently long time, this Court deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing his bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7.However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.