High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab - CRM-68158-M-2006  RD-P&H 12035 (5 December 2006)
Crl. Misc. No. 68158-M of 2006
DATE OF DECISION : 04.12.2006
State of Punjab
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
Petitioner Hardev Singh has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 69 dated 6.7.2006 under Section 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the allegations in the FIR, on the day of the alleged occurrence, co-accused Baldev Singh was quarreling with his son Sandeep Singh. When Sukhminder Singh brother-in- law of the complainant Gurtej Singh stopped Baldev Singh from doing so, then Baldev Singh, Hardev Singh and Santokh Singh got angry with him and thereafter, Baldev Singh told Santokh Singh to caught hold of him. It is alleged that with intention to kill, Santokh Singh fired upon the complainant straightway with his gun, when he was standing in the way. During this time, Baldev Singh and petitioner Hardev Singh allegedly fired upon the complainant party with their weapons.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that there are nine injuries on the person of the complainant and as per opinion of the Doctor, who has been examined as PW.1, possibility cannot be ruled that all the injuries on the person of the injured could be result of a single shot. He further contends that only one empty shell was recovered from the spot. Counsel has further contends that during investigation, Baldev Singh accused, against whom there are similar allegations, has been found innocent.
Counsel for the respondent-State after having instructions from Jagraj Singh ASI, does not dispute these facts. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 16.7.2006 and the trial is not progressing, because the complainant is not coming present and now he has been summoned through bailable warrants.
In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner and he is, accordingly, ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
December 04, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.