Rajbir Singh @ Nannu vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 14257 P&H

CRM-M-51420-2022                                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

CRM-M-51420-2022 Date of decision : 14.11.2022

Rajbir Singh @ Nannu

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for Ms.Arti Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.73 dated 28.04.2022 registered under

Sections 307, 364, 341, 148, 129 IPC at Police Station Bhargo Camp,

District Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case there is one injured i.e., Vishal who is the brother of the

complainant Danish and both the said persons have compromised the matter

vide Annexure P-2 as per which they have no objection in case the present

FIR is quashed. It is further submitted that no injury has been declared as

dangerous to life and Section 307 IPC has been wrongly added. It is stated

that the petitioner has been attributed a lalkara and also an injury which

attracts Section 325 IPC, which is a bailable offence. It is further stated that 1 of 3

recovery of iron rod has already been effected from the present petitioner

and the petitioner has been in custody since 29.04.2022 and since the

challan has not been presented, thus, the presentation of challan and enquiry

would take time.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is

involved in 4 other cases and is a habitual offender.

Learned counsel for the complainant has reaffirmed the fact

that the matter has been compromised and the compromise (Annexure P-2)

is a genuine document and has been executed with free will and without any

coercion, between the parties. It is submitted that the complainant has no

objection if the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted

concession of regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, 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 while

deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot

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

cases. 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."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

2 of 3

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that the matter has been compromised and none of the

injuries suffered by the injured Vishal has been declared as dangerous to life

so as to attract Section 307 IPC and also keeping in view the custody period

of the petitioner, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered

to be released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to him

not being required in any other case.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the

petitioner to threaten or influence 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 a final 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 petition.

                                                    (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                       JUDGE
November 14, 2022
Davinder Kumar

                 Whether speaking / reasoned                       Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                Yes/No




                                    3 of 3