Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan Kumar Alias Sheru vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047932
CRM-M-10128-2024 [1] 2024:PHHC:047932
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10128-2024
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a first petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.223 dated 25.10.2021
registered under Sections 307/294/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act (Section 54/59 of the Arms Act has
been added later on) at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2023 and out of 10 prosecution
witnesses, none have been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is
likely to take time. It is further submitted that in the present case, no person
has been injured and even as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, two
groups had clashed with each other.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047932
CRM-M-10128-2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:047932
3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted
that the petitioner is involved in several other cases and is also not on bail in
a large number of cases. However, other facts have not been disputed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal to the said
argument 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 and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another
case. 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. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances more so
the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2023 and there are 10
prosecution witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and
thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and also the fact that the
present case is a case of no injury and the fact that even as per the FIR, a
clash had taken place between the two groups and also keeping in view the
law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra), the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular
bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047932
CRM-M-10128-2024 [3] 2024:PHHC:047932
trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other
case.
6. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten 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.
7. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an 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.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
09.04.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
