Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Chand vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2022
CRM-M-1942-2022 -1-
206-B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1942-2022
Date of decision : 08.12.2022
Gian Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate for
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.246 dated 18.10.2021 registered under Sections
341, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 379-B
of IPC has been added later on) at Police Station City Phagwara, District
Kapurthala.
On 18.01.2022, the petitioner has been granted interim
anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by passing the
following order:-
"Notice of motion for 29.03.2022.
To be heard along with CRM-M-832 of 2022.
Interim order in the same terms.
January 18, 2022 Sd/- (Harinder Singh Sidhu)
Judge"
A perusal of the above order would show that reference in the
1 of 4
same was made to CRM-M-832-2022 which was a petition filed by co-
accused Surjit Lal, Sunil Kumar and Gurjeet. The order dated 14.01.2022
passed in CRM-M-832-2022 is reproduced here as under:-
"This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 246, dated
18.10.2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 506,
148, 149 IPC (Section 379 B IPC added later on) at Police
Station Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Bittu who
stated that he deals in scrap. One Gian also has a scrap
shop at a distance of 1 kilometer from the shop of
complainant. As both of them are dealing in same business,
they frequently quarrel regarding their customers. It is
alleged that Gian always attempted to demean the
complainant. On 17.10.2021 at about 2.20 am in the
morning, complainant was travelling in XUV alongwith
another vehicle towards village Padi Khalsa. When they
reaching near the Divine Public School, 2 white cars and a
Tata 207 vehicle in which 15-20 persons were present
stopped the complainant. When the complainant open the
window pane and asked the reason why he was stopped,
then Gian raised lalkara that complainant be caught and
taught a lesson for alluring the customers of Gian and
causing loss to them. It is alleged that injuries were caused
to complainant by nephew of Gian by using karra. The
complainant escaped in his car but he was again intercepted
and further injuries were caused by using datar and karra.
In the quarrel, Rs. 35000/- which the complainant was
carrying fell down. One gold chain also fell down. In the
meantime, people gathered there and accused ran away
from spot.
Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that
2 of 4
petitioners having not been named in FIR. All the offences
are bailable. Section 379 B IPC was only added
subsequently. He further states that infact present FIR was a
counter blast to the allegations made by one Sanju (nephew
of Gian) against complainant party. He alleges that it was
complainant party who had attacked Sanju and caused him
grievous injury on the forehead. He further states that
petitioners have a shop adjacent to complainant's shop and
attempt will be made to resolve the outstanding
dispute/misunderstanding between them. He undertakes that
petitioners shall cooperate in investigation.
Notice of motion for 29.3.2022.
In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of petitioners,
they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the
satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. They will join
investigation as and when called for and cooperate in same.
They will abide by conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
Sd/-(HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
JUDGE
14.1.2022"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
pursuance of the abovesaid orders, the petitioner has joined the
investigation.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sunil
Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is
not required for any further custodial interrogation.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the
petitioner is involved in three other cases, out of which, one case is of the
year 2006 and others are of the years 2021 and 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
3 of 4
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 has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from
the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as well
as law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra) moreso,
the facts which have been noticed in the abovesaid orders and also the fact
that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further
custodial interrogation, the present petition is allowed and the interim order
dated 18.01.2022, is ordered to be made absolute.
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.
08.12.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
