Gurmeet Singh vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 167 HP

THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                        Cr.MP(M) No. 2211 of 2020
                                        Reserved on : 01.01.2021




                                                                         .
                                          Decided on: 05.01.2021





    Gurmeet Singh                                                    ......Petitioner

                                        Versus





    State of H.P.                                                ......Respondent


    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the petitioner:                Mr.        Rajesh   Mandhotra,
                         r             Advocate      through   video

                                       conferencing.
    For the respondent:                Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Dy. A.G.
                                       through video conferencing.
    Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This petition has been preferred seeking regular bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C, in case FIR No. 91 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016

registered in Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P.

under Sections 307, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section

25 of Arms Act.

2. Status report stands filed stating therein that on

30.06.2016, a telephonic information was given by complainant

Kuldeep Narayan in Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan that his friend

Sanjeev Thakur had been shot at by a person namely, Jatt and

Sanjeev Thakur had been taken to CHC, Nagrota Bagwan for

treatment, whereupon police party had rushed to CHC Nagrota

Bagwan and recorded statement of Kuldeep Narayan under Section

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

154, Cr.P.C, wherein he (complainant) had stated that on 29.06.2016

at about 9.15 p.m. his friend Sanjeev Thakur had come to his house

.

and at about 10.00 p.m. he had come to the gate of his house to see

off his friend. Car of his friend was parked adjacent to the gate. The

moment his friend reached near his car, a vehicle bearing No. HP-39-

3737 with two occupants, including Driver, came from the side of

Nagrota Bagwan bus stand and stopped behind the car of his friend.

One of the occupants who was driving the vehicle was Ashu son of the

owner of Akshay Palace and another person had introduced himself as

Jatt, who had come down from the vehicle and had hot exchange with

his friend Sanjeev Thakur on the issue of giving space to the vehicle by

reversing and moving it forward. Later on that person had proclaimed

that he is goon of Nagrota and no-one had dared to touch him and

thereafter he intended to assault Sanjeev Thakur physically and when

Sanjeev Thakur had asked him to go back, the said person had shot at

Sanjeev Thakur with gun. The bullet had hit the right hand of Sanjeev

Thakur. Thereafter, both the assailants had run away from the spot in

their vehicle and when complainant tried to stop them, Jatt had also

pointed gun to him.

3. On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was

registered and investigation was carried on. During investigation,

Akshay Dhiman @ Akshu, co-accused was arrested on 07.07.2016,

who after remaining in judicial custody, was enlarged on bail by

learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala vide order dated 01.09.2016,

whereas, petitioner Gurmeet Singh was not traceable and could not be

arrested despite all out efforts as he had gone underground to avoid

his arrest.

4. It is stated in the status report that during investigation, it

came in the notice that Gurmeet was a dreaded culprit who had been

.

declared proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 100/12 dated 02.09.2012

registered under Sections 363, 325, 323, 34 IPC in Police Station, Dera

Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur and FIR No. 67/2012 registered under

Sections 307, 399, 402, 419, 120B, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25

of Arms Act in Police Station, Mattewal, District Amritsar. It was found

that in 2014 also, two other cases were registered in Police Station,

Nagrota Bagwan against the petitioner bearing FIR No. 9/2014 dated

10.01.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323 IPC and FIR

No. 44/2014 dated 28.04.2014 under Sections 379, 34 IPC read with

Section 25 of Arms Act and in those cases also, petitioner was not

traceable and, therefore, steps were being taken for declaring him

proclaimed offender. Subsequently, it came in the notice that on

04.03.2018 petitioner had been apprehended by Punjab Police during a

'Nakka' at Dera Baba Nanak and a 'Desi Katta' (pistol) was also

recovered from him and case FIR No. 29/2018 dated 04.03.2018 under

Section 25 of Arms Act was registered against him. Thereafter,

production warrant of petitioner was obtained from the Court of JMIC-II,

Kangra and after taking his custody, he was interrogated. Lastly, it is

stated that there are number of cases registered against the petitioner

and as of now, he has been lodged in Central Jail, Hoshiarpur in various

cases registered in Punjab.

5. So far as the trial in present case is concerned, with

respect to progress therein, it is stated in status report that on

12.06.2019, the Court had issued production warrant for presence of

petitioner on 28.08.2019, but petitioner had not appeared. Thereafter,

production warrant for 3.10.2019 was issued and thereafter on

17.12.2019 again production warrant for 07.03.2019 was issued but

.

petitioner could not appear on these dates and thereafter another

production warrant for 28.05.2020 was issued but because of CORONA

pandemic, petitioner could not reach the Court. According to the

status report, petitioner had not appeared on any date fixed by the

trial Court and now case has been fixed for further orders on

17.03.2021. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing

Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1098 of 2020, which was dismissed on 10.11.2020. On

the basis of information placed on record by the respondent-State as

well as petitioner it was found found, at that time, that petitioner had

been enlarged on bail in all cases except FIR No. 232 dated 03.09.2019

registered in Police Station, Islamabad, District Amritsar and,

therefore, it was considered by the Court that enlarging the petitioner

on bail in the present case at this stage, would be a futile exercise as

he would remain in judicial custody in Central Jail, Hoshiarpur for his

custody in case FIR No. 232/2019 referred supra and for his presence

during trial, production warrants would be required to be issued every

time.

6. Now, the petitioner has placed on record copy of order

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on

16.11.2020 in CRM-M-36234 of 2020 titled as Gurmeet Singh versus

State of Punjab, whereby petitioner has been enlarged on bail in FIR

No. 232 dated 3.9.2019, after passing of order by this Court dated 10 th

November, 2020 in Cr.M.P(M) No.1098 of 2020.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that petitioner has local roots in Himachal Pradesh as his

maternal uncles belong to Shahpur District Kangra and, therefore, for

ensuring his presence, he is also ready to furnish local surety and

.

further undertakes to abide by any conditions deemed fit by this Court

to be imposed for enlarging him on bail.

8. Lastly, it is submitted that case was listed before the trial

Court on 17.10.2020 and on that day, case has been adjourned for five

months and next date of hearing has been fixed for 17.03.2021 for

passing further orders and, therefore, he has submitted that

incarceration of the petitioner since July, 2018, for more than two

years, is not serving no purpose as no effective proceedings in trial are

taking place.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

rival contentions of parties, at this stage, though criminal antecedents

of petitioner are not in his favour, however, considering the fact that

effective proceedings in present case are not taking place for failure of

concerned agencies in producing the petitioner in the Court despite

issuance of production warrants by the Court and also period of

detention, I consider that at this stage, petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, he is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing

personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like

amount, one of which shall be local surety, as undertaken by the

petitioner, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge/trial Court,

Kangra within two weeks from today and also subject to the following

conditions:-

i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

.

him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any

Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or

intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar

to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

vi)

that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

vii) that he shall furnish proof of his place of ordinary residence like certificate of Panchayat or any other authority which may be placed where his mother, brother or wife are residing and he shall keep on

informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his

availability to Police and/or during trial; and

viii) he shall not leave India without permission of the

Court.

ix) petitioner shall not repeat commission of similar offence and in case of repetition of similar offence,

bail granted in the present case shall be liable to be cancelled, on taking appropriate steps by the police/prosecution.

10. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing

and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the

petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice.

11. In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed

upon him him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such

.

eventuality prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for

cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

12. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the

directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.

HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

13. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not

affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined

for the disposal of the bail application.

14. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order

downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not

insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may verify the order

from the High Court website or otherwise.

15. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Dasti Copy.

    January 05, 2021                                  (Vivek Singh Thakur)
          (naveen)                                            Judge