Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1949 (PNJ)

Parasdeep Singh @ Paras v. State of Punjab

2021-12-16

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2021
Judgment Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference. 2. This petition under Section 439 CrPC is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 259, dated 28th October, 2021, under Sections 307/323/ 148/ 149 IPC, 1860 and 25/ 27/ 54 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar. 3. The allegations of the complainant-Avjeet Singh @ avi are that there was dispute between Ravinder Singh and Parasdeep Singh, the matter was patched up. The complainant alongwith Abhijot Singh went to Exora Academy Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar where they were informed that their friend Ravinder Singh was beaten by Paras Dhillon alongwith 8 to 10 accomplices. They went to the spot but nothing was found. He came back to academy. In the meantime, one Hyundai i-20 car came in which five persons were beating Ravinder Singh, they stopped the car and threw Ravinder Singh. When the complainant and his friend went to help Ravinder Singh, five persons alight from the car, Paras Dhillon was armed with Datar and other occupants of the car were armed with base ball bat. In the altercation, petitioner gave Datar blow on the left elbow and co-accused took out a revolver and fired two gunshots. The unidentified persons gave two butt blows on head of Abhijot Singh. Thereafter accused fled from the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations petitioner was armed with Datar and inflicted injury on a non-vital parts of body. None suffered a gunshot injury. The contention is that no case is made out under Section 307. The petitioner is not attributed with shots injury. He further contends that petitioner is nineteen years young boy who is pursuing his studies. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 6th November, 2021. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that Avijot Singh received three injuries and injury No.3 is attributed to the petitioner. The other two injuries are on the left ear. He was member of unlawful assembly. 6. As per the allegations in the FIR the petitioner inflicted injury with Datar on a non-vital part. The injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact. The other two injuries are on the left ear. He was member of unlawful assembly. 6. As per the allegations in the FIR the petitioner inflicted injury with Datar on a non-vital part. The injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the fact. The petitioner is in custody since 6th November, 2021, no recovery is to be made, the fire of the gunshot is not attributed to the petitioner, invoking of Section 307 IPC against the petitioner would be a debatable question. Considering the age of the petitioner and that his further custody would affect the studies being pursued by the petitioner, he is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. From the allegations, it is forthcoming that there was two incidents involving the accused and the complainant. It is expected that the petitioner will exercising a self restrain while being on bail. In case, the petitioner involves himself in similar activities in future, State would be at liberty to avail the remedies in accordance with law. 8. The petition is allowed. 9. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.