Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh @ Gaggi vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044695
227
2024:PHHC:044695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15252-2024
DECIDED ON: 03.04.2024
GAGANDEEP SINGH @ GAGGI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439
Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.207, dated 21.06.2023,
under Sections 323, 341, 34 and 307 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act,
1959, registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury attributed to
the petitioner is given by a stick blow on the lower back of the victim, which is not
dangerous to life or grievous in nature. He further submits that the co-accused
namely Gurmail Singh @ Gela, who had been attributed the axe blow on the head
of the complainant has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated
28.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed in CRM-M-5184-2024 and other co-accused
namely Gursimran Singh, who has been alleged to have inflicted gunshot injury has
also been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court being juvenile.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044695
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that
the petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, does not deserve the concession of
bail at least at this stage, though he does not controvert the fact that the injury
attributed to the petitioner is neither grievous nor dangerous to life.
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the injury attributed to the
petitioner is simple in nature, who has suffered incarceration of 4 months and 1 days
and in the other cases as well, he is on bail added with the fact that after framing of
charges on 01.12.2023, no prosecution witnesses has been examined so far out of
total 20, which is sufficient to infer this Court that trial will certainly take long
time,no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for
uncertain period, which would amount to infringement of his right to life and
liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and
again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131.
5. As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
pendency of other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this
Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.
State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, this Court observed that
pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioner cannot be a predicament to
consider the case for anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the evidence of the material
involved in those FIRs can be treated in those cases alone and not material in
instant FIR against the accused-petitioner to hold him guilty.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044695
6. In the light of the above discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
7. The present petition, is hereby allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.04.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
