Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1067 (PNJ)

Mantar Singh Brar v. State Of Punjab

2019-04-03

MANOJ BAJAJ

body2019
JUDGMENT Manoj Bajaj, J. - Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been indicted in case FIR No.129 dated 07.08.2018 under Sections 307, 323, 341, 148 and 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot (later on added Sections 218, 201, 34 and 120-B IPC), recorded on the statement of complainant-Ajit Singh. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the alleged occurrence took place on 13.10.2015 when a large number of persons gathered to register their protest to the alleged incident of sacrilege. It was narrated by the complainant that police had taken action against the crowd and used force against them. Allegedly the complainant had suffered a gun shot injury on 13.10.2015, however, no statement was given by him previously before the police. 2. Learned senior counsel further contends that in respect of this occurrence a case FIR No.192 dated 14.10.2015 already stood registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332, 333, 323, 382, 435, 283, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC; Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. According to him, the offences in the FIR No.192 dated 14.10.2015 reveal that crowd was indisciplined and turned unorderly and it was need of hour to control the same with police action. According to the learned senior counsel, 47 police officers had suffered injuries at the hands of the mob. The complainant is stated to be one of the members of the said large crowd, who had suffered this gun shot injury. It is further pointed out that the statement of the complainant was recorded by the commission of enquiry and after the conclusion of the same, the petitioner was not indicted. According to him, the FIR No.129 dated 07.08.2018 is highly belated and registration of the same on the same set of allegations for which previous FIR already stood recorded reflects the mala fide on the part of the complainant. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had been the member of the Legislative Assembly previously for three terms, who is not named in the FIR. 3. Notice of motion for 23.04.2019. 4. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had been the member of the Legislative Assembly previously for three terms, who is not named in the FIR. 3. Notice of motion for 23.04.2019. 4. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join the investigation and would come present as and when called for and in the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973.