Pankaj Sharma vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15498 P&H

CRM-M-54584-2022                                             -1-

218
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-54584-2022
                                                 Date of decision : 01.12.2022

Pankaj Sharma

                                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                   ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:    Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

            ****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.66 dated 12.04.2022 registered under Sections 307,

341, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections

25/27/54 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 has been added later on) at Police Station Tibba,

Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2022 and investigation

is complete and challan has been presented and there are 20 prosecution

witnesses, out of which, none have been examined and thus, the conclusion

of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that as per the

1 of 4

allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner has been attributed one injury,

although the same is a gunshot injury to Parminder Singh upon his right

shoulder and the said injury has been declared to be simple in nature. It is

contended that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Deepak and Arman

Singh have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this

Court. It is further contended that the petitioner in order to show his bona

fide, is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the trial Court within

a period of two weeks from today, on account of medical expenses incurred

by Parminder Singh-injured without admitting his liability and he has no

objection, in case the said amount is released in favour of the said

Parminder Singh-injured.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel, has opposed the

present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted

that the petitioner is involved in one more case and recovery of pistol has

also been effected from him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid

argument, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", reported

as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the

present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot

be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another

case. The relevant portion of the said judgment 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

2 of 4

has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances more

so, the facts that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since

17.04.2022 and investigation is complete and challan has been presented

and out of 20 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined and thus, the

conclusion of trial is likely to take time and the fact that as per the

allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner has been attributed one injury

on the right shoulder of Parminder Singh which has been declared to be

simple in nature and the fact that recovery has already been effected from

the present petitioner and also in view of law laid down in Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the present petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing

bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

subject to him not being required in any other case. The same would

however, be subject to depositing of an amount of Rs.20,000/- with the trial

Court within a period of two weeks from today which would be released to

Parminder Singh-injured by the trial Court.

The payment of the amount of Rs.20,000/- would not be

construed as an admission of guilt by the petitioner.

It is made clear that in case, the said amount is not deposited by

the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the present petition

3 of 4

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner would be deemed to have been

dismissed.

It is further made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would

be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted

to the petitioner.

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.

01.12.2022                                            (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan                                                    JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned:-              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:-                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4