Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2801 (PNJ)

Parambir Singh @ Nanak v. State of Punjab

2023-09-19

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

body2023
Judgment Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No.70 dated 11.07.2023 registered under Sections 379-B, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 109 IPC, added later on) at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur. 2. The custody certificate filed by the learned counsel for the State, is taken on record. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. The petitioner is not involved in the crime as alleged against him. Even as per the story of the prosecution the only allegation against the petitioner is that the car, which was snatched from the complainant, was found outside the house of the petitioner when one of the co-accused, who had snatched the said car, was seen with him. Therefore, the petitioner is not even alleged to be a participant in the process of snatching from the complainant. Another allegation against the petitioner is that some illegal arm and ammunition was recovered from his house. However, that recovery is totally implanted because the police are having ill-will against the petitioner. In fact, the police are hobnobbing with the members of some gang. Therefore, when the petitioner was even in hospital and receiving a treatment for bullet injury in his chest, his photograph was clicked in presence of the police and the same was posted on social media account of one Sukhnoor_307, who obviously, is a gangster, as is reflected from his social media post. Other reason why the police are against the petitioner, is that the members of the gang were indulging in drug paddling in the area in collusion with the police. The petitioner raised voice against such activities of the police. Therefore, in a quick reaction, the police have made several cases against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2023. The petitioner is not required for any investigation purposes. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Harminder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender. The petitioner has been involved in as many as seven other cases. The petitioner is not required for any investigation purposes. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Harminder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender. The petitioner has been involved in as many as seven other cases. In the present case as well the arm and ammunition were recovered from the house of the petitioner. Not only that even the main accused who had snatched the car in question, had made a disclosure statement that the incident of snatching had been done for arranging car so that the petitioner could take revenge from Kaka Pandianwala. Therefore, the petitioner is directly involved in the present case, as well. However, it is not disputed that except the fact that the car was found outside the house of the petitioner along with the person who snatched it and some arm and ammunition was recovered from the house of the petitioner, there is no allegation against the petitioner qua directly being involved in the incident of snatching, as such. The petitioner is not even the one of the four persons named by the complainant as snatchers. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2023. 5. In view the above, but without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.