Punjab-Haryana High Court
Onkar @ Gollu And Another vs State Of Punjab on 14 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105810
CRM-M-39855
39855-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(131) CRM-M-39855-2024
Date of Decision : 14.08.2024
Onkar @ Gollu and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate and
Mr. Ramneek Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Verma,, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL,
MOUDGIL J.(ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (old Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been invoked
seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.
No.112
dated 25.05.2024,
25.05 under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at
Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala
Kapurthala, Punjab.
2. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned
rned counsel for the petitioners would contend that it is purely
a case of false implication once the petitioners were released on bail in all
other cases as mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the petition
petition,, being seven in
number during the
t year 2021-22.. It is the case set up by the petitioners that
once they were on bail in all cases
case as stated above in the year 2023, the police
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105810
CRM-M-39855
has nominated the present
present petitioners in the instant case just because they had
bad antecedents and certain weapons were recovered from one vehicle i.e. a
black colour Safari Car bearing registration No.PB
No.PB-02-BL-6743, which was
lying abandoned as ownership of the said car is not with the petitioners.
On behalf of the State
Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice on
instructions from SI Nirmal Singh opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioner
petitioners are of serious
nature. He further submits that custodial in
interrogation of the petitionerss is
necessary in the present case and opposed the concession of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners.
petitioner
3. Analysis
On a specific query being put forth to the State, Mr. Rajiv Verma,
DAG, Punjab on instructions from SI Nirmal
Nirmal Singh would submit that the car
is registered under the name of one Gurmail Singh son of Mohinder Singh but
could not refer to any incriminating material from the case file brought by SI
Nirmal Singh, to assist the learned State counsel.
In light of the above, this Court does not find any reasons to
disbelieve the assertions of learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage as
far as consideration of anticipatory bail is concerned.
Hence in the absence of any incriminating and cogent material
produced before this Court, the petitioners do not deserve to be taken into
custody as "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its latest judgment passed in 'Jalaluddin Khan
vs. Union of India' 2024 Live
Live Law (SC) 571 and even an accused is also
entitled to a legal right of bail as enshrined under Article 21 of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105810
CRM-M-39855
Constitution of India.
Be that as it may, after giving a thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, particularly to the
submission made by learned State Counsel, this Court is not in consonance to
the reasons seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner
petitioners as the present
case is based upon the documentary evidence and forgery, if any, which is yet
to be established and can be ascertained, in case the petitioner
petitioners are granted
some protection at this stage. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the
petitioners the concession of anticipatory bail if the petitioners have bona fide
intentionss and are willing to join the investigation and cooperate for
furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the
Investigating Agency in time.
4. DECISION
Hence, in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances in the
instant FIR, the petitioners are directed to be released on anticipatory bail in
the event of their arrest subject to their joining investigation and reporting to
the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of 10 days from today, on
furnishing
ng of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner
petitioners shall also abide by the terms
and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr
Cr.P.C
.P.C which are
reproduced below :-
(i) a condition that the person sha
shall
ll make himself available
for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade
ssuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105810
CRM-M-39855
any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
sub
section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under
that section.
However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner
petitioners do not
comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within 10 days
from today,, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically
omatically stand
cancelled.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
August 14,, 2024
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
