Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh @ Nanna And Others vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 2021
CRM-M-43237-2021 -1-
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43237-2021
Date of decision : 13.10.2021
Jagjit Singh @ Nanna and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing)
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners in FIR No.136 dated 21.08.2021 registered under Sections
323, 341, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 379-B
of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station Koom Kalan, District
Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the
present case, a compromise dated 16.09.2021 has been effected between the
parties and a copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2
with the present petition and as per the said compromise, the complainant
has stated that he would have no objection in case the FIR is quashed. It is
1 of 4
further submitted that on the basis of said compromise, the petitioner
alongwith co-accused Paramvir Singh have filed a petition bearing
No.CRM-M-39899-2021, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. titled Paramvir
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, for quashing of FIR, in
which, notice of motion has already been issued and the parties have been
directed to appear before the trial Court and give their statements. It is also
submitted that the fact that the compromise has been effected between the
parties, is also apparent from the order dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the bail
application of the petitioners had been rejected. Reference has been made to
paras 5 and 9 of the same, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the
complainant-Harjit Singh had suffered a statement to the effect that the
matter has been compromised and he has no objection, if the bail is granted
to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as
far as Jagjit Singh @ Nanna is concerned, he has been alleged to have raised
a lalkara and was alleged of having given a stick blow on the right arm of
the injured and petitioner No.3-Hardeep Singh has not been attributed any
specific injury. It is also submitted that although petitioner No.2-
Ramandeep Singh @ Ravi, had been attributed an injury on the head of the
injured but the same was with the stick (danda) which is not a sharp edged
weapon. However, it is reiterated that since the matter has been
compromised, thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would not
be required.
On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, appears
2 of 4
and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully
prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the
present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and has
submitted that against petitioner No.2-Ramandeep Singh @ Ravi, there is a
specific allegation of having given a stick (danda) blow on the head of the
injured. It is also submitted that the petitioners are involved in other cases as
well.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the petitioners are on bail in all the abovesaid cases and has relied upon
a judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that it is the
facts and the custody undergone by the petitioner in the matter at hand i.e.,
the present petition, which are to be considered primarily, in order to assess
as to whether the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail or not.
Reference has been made to the relevant portion of paragraph 6 which is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis
of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court
to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he
has been charged and other circumstances such as
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court
etc."
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, moreso
3 of 4
the fact that in the present case, the matter has been compromised as is
apparent from the compromise dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) and also
the fact that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
on the basis of the abovesaid compromise, has already been filed and notice
of motion has been issued in the same and the fact that the complainant had
himself appeared as is apparent from para 9 of the order dated 29.09.2021
(Annexure P-3) and has reiterated the factum of the compromise and had
also stated that he had no objection in case, the petitioners were granted bail
and also the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners in such a
situation would not be required and also in view of the judgment passed in
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the present petition for
anticipatory bail is allowed and the petitioners are granted the concession of
anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of
Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when
called upon to do so.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only
for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
13.10.2021 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
