Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navjot Singh @ Jota vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057343
CRM-M-18537-2023 1 2023:PHHC:057343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-18537-2023
Date of decision : 24.04.2023
Navjot Singh @ Jota
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Ms.Harpreet Maini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is the 4th petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in cross case DDR no.71 dated 23.06.2021
(wrongly mentioned as 27.06.2021 in the head note of the petition)
(Annexure P-2), G.D. no.65 dated 25.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) registered
under Sections 307, 160, 148, 149, 120-B, 304 IPC at Police Station
Kotkapura, District Faridkot in FIR no.135 dated 22.06.2021 registered
under Sections 307, 201, 511, 160 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms
Act (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier
three bail petitions were withdrawn on account of clerical mistakes / wrong
mentioning of sections / DDR etc. with liberty to file a fresh petition with
full and better particulars and thus, in fact the present petition is the first
petition for regular bail. It is further submitted that the present case is a case
of version and cross-version. It is stated that the FIR in the present case was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057343
CRM-M-18537-2023 2 2023:PHHC:057343
registered on the basis of secret information and DDR no.71 dated
23.06.2021 was registered on the statement of Ravel Singh and in the said
statement, the present petitioner was not named. It is further stated that the
petitioner was named in the cross version recorded vide DDR no.71 dated
23.06.2021 by virtue of GD no.65 dated 25.06.2021 and the case of the
prosecution was that the petitioner had provided a motor cycle to the
accused in the cross case. It is submitted that neither the petitioner was
present at the spot nor he had caused any injury to any person and the only
role attributed to the petitioner is that the petitioner had given the said
motor cycle. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody
since 25.06.2021 and there are 38 witnesses, out of which, none have been
examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is stated that Ravel
Singh against whom the allegation is that he had fired, has been granted
regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order 17.01.2023
passed in CRM-M-51499-2021.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case,
although initially Section 302 IPC was added against the opposite party but
subsequently on investigation, it was found that Golu belonging to the party
of the present petitioner, had accidentally caused death of one of his
accomplice Deepak Kumar @ Krishan Pal and thus, Section 302 IPC was
deleted against the opposite party and Section 304 IPC was added in the
cross version registered against the party of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that in addition to the recovery of motor cycle, a pistol has been
recovered from the house of the present petitioner and the petitioner is
involved in three other cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057343
CRM-M-18537-2023 3 2023:PHHC:057343
that the petitioner has been acquitted in one case and in two other cases, he
is on bail and 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."
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
6. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances
moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.06.2021 and
out 38 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined and thus, the trial is
likely to take time and also the fact that as per the prosecution case, the
petitioner was not present at the spot and has not caused any injury to
anyone and also the fact that the present case is a case of version and cross
version and also in view of the law laid down in Maulana's case (supra),
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.
7. 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,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057343
CRM-M-18537-2023 4 2023:PHHC:057343
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of
bail granted to the petitioner.
8. 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
April 24, 2023
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057343
4 of 4
