Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 April, 2023
CRM-M-16093-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:050673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRM-M-16093-2023
Date of Decision: 12.04.2023
Gurjinder Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
This is a repeat (second) bail application filed by the
petitioner before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular
bail in case FIR No. 260 dated 10.12.2019 registered under Sections 399,
402, 412 and 120-B IPC; Sections 28 and 28 of the Arms Act and
Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Tanda,
District Hoshiarpur.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 10.12.2019, police
party headed by SI Jasbir Singh received secret information that accused
Harpreet Singh @ Raja, Jagtar Singh @ Jagga, Karanjit Singh @ Monu,
Gurjinder Singh @ Kaka (petitioner herein) and Sarbjit Singh @ Sabi
armed with deadly weapons made planning to commit dacoity. FIR was
got registered and raid was conducted at the disclosed place where
Harpreet Singh and Jagtar Singh were found having rifles while Karanjit
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.13 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-16093-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:050673
Gurjinder Singh and Sarabjit Singh were sitting with them and were
taking intoxicant powder. Two rifles along with live cartridges and three
kirpans were recovered from them. On personal search, 225 grams
intoxicant powder from accused Karanjit, 120 grams intoxicant powder
from accused Gurjinder Singh (petitioner), 60 grams intoxicant powder
from accused Sarbjit Singh, 260 grams intoxicant powder from accused
Jagtar Singh and 265 grams intoxicant powder from accused Harpreet
Singh @ Raju were recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He had no
concern with main accused, namely, Harpreet Singh and Jagtar Singh. 120
grams of intoxicant powder was recovered from the petitioner which is
marginally above the commercial quantity. The only role attributed to the
petitioner is that he was sitting with other co-accused and planning to
commit dacoity. No weapon was recovered from him. Petitioner is in
custody since 17.09.2021. The trial is likely to take long time as the next
date before the trial Court is 25.07.2023. No useful purpose would be
served by further detention of the petitioner in custody. Thus, it is prayed
that the petitioner may be released on regular bail, keeping in view the
long custody period of the petitioner. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble
the Apex Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
203 LiveLaw (SC) 260.
It is not disputed that first petition filed by the petitioner
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.13 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-16093-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:050673
bearing CRM-M-1025-2022 for grant of regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order dated
28.10.2022 (Annexure P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show as to
whether there is any substantial change in the circumstances after
rejection of the earlier bail application of the petitioner by this Court on
28.10.2022. Merely because the petitioner is behind the bars since
17.09.2021 and trial is not likely to conclude in near future, are no
grounds for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (SC),
Law Finder Doc Id # 69139, has considered this issue and observed as
under:-
"13........In the impugned order it is noticed that the High
Court has given the period of incarceration already
undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial
concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge
the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused
stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment
or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere
fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to being
enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with
the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging
the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged
is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the
witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."
The facts and circumstances of the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable from the facts
of the present case because every case has its own peculiar facts and
circumstances. Therefore, no benefit of the same, whatsoever, can be
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.13 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-16093-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:050673
given to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case and seriousness of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, I do not deem it a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail
to the petitioner. Hence, this second bail application cannot be
entertained by this Court and the same is hereby dismissed.
12.04.2023 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
RISHU KATARIA
2023.04.13 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
