Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh Alias Jinder vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:043782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8374-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.04.2024
Harjinder Singh @ Jinder ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gauravdeep Singh Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate, for the complainant.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section/s
0134 10.10.2019 Mehta, District 307, 336, 148, 149 IPC and 25,
Amritsar 27 of the Arms Act
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned
FIR.
2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Sahib Singh, wherein it
is alleged that on 10.10.2019, when he alongwith his friends including
Amritpal Singh was playing Kabadi in the village ground, a scuffle took
place between Amritpal Singh and Bikramjit Singh and thereafter said
Bikramjit Singh left the spot. It is alleged that later, at about 6:00 PM,
when complainant alongwith Amritpal Singh and other persons was still
present in the ground, 7/8 persons including Navjot Singh @ Jota, Happy,
CRM-M-8374-2024 (O&M) -2-
Mehakpreet Singh, Harjinder Singh @ Judge, Simranjeet Singh and 2/3
unidentified persons came there on motor-cycles and while raising
lalkara, they tried to catch hold Amritpal Singh. However, when the
complainant came forward and tried to stop them, one of those persons
fired from his pistol towards the complainant, which hit on the left thigh
of the complainant as a result of which he fell down. It is alleged that
when he (complainant) raised alarm, all the assailants ran away from the
spot with their respective weapons on their motor-cycles by firing shots
in the air.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case and that as a matter of fact, identically
situated co-accused, namely, Mehakdeep Singh, Navjot Singh @ Jot and
Ajay @ Ajju Masih, who had already faced trial, stand acquitted vide
judgment dated 06.01.2024, wherein the complainant and other material
witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution at all.
4. The aforesaid position regarding acquittal of identically situated co-
accused is not disputed either by the learned State counsel as well as
learned counsel representing the complainant. It has, however, been
informed by learned State counsel that the petitioner as on date has been
behind bars since the last about 3 years & 19 days and that he is not
involved in any other case.
5. Having regard to the aforestated position, wherein identically situated co-
accused already stand acquitted on account of the complainant not having
supported the prosecution version and the fact that the petitioner has been
CRM-M-8374-2024 (O&M) -3-
behind bars since the last more than 3 years and otherwise has a clean
record, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful
purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
02.04.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
