Jasvinder Singh Gill vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1717 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

                 Anticipatory Bail Appl. No.510 of 2023
Jasvinder Singh Gill                                  .....Applicant
                                        Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
& Another                                             ....Respondents

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an Anticipatory Bail Application moved by the applicant in connection with FIR No.300 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 & 506 IPC at Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The case which resulted into filing of the First Information Report on 27.06.2023 at about 00:21 hours is an incident which allegedly happened on 25.06.2023 reported by one Manohar Singh naming the applicant alongwith two other persons Kuldeep Singh and Gurmeet Singh. According to the First Information Report, the informant-Manohar Singh was the driver of applicant and on 15.06.2023 he was sent to Chandigarh by the applicant to drop his wife and when he was going to Chandigarh some information was sought by the applicant from him regarding one rifle, which according to the informant was kept in the almirah. On 22.06.2023 when informant reached to the house of applicant, the rifle was not there in the almirah and the lock of the almirah was broken; the applicant was not there in the house. Informant reported the matter to Banna Kheda, Police Station. Feeling aggrieved by this action, applicant called the informant to his place to take his rifle; when informant reached to the

house of applicant, applicant committed maar-peet with him; in between Amreek Singh and Satendra Singh reached to the house of the applicant and they saw them committing maar-peet with the informant.

4. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that with an intention to kill Manohar Singh applicant fired by his licencee gun upon the informant but the fire was missed and he had a narrow escape. He further stated that in the incident his right hand finger and arm were fractured. Fracture was also found on the left hand of Satendra Singh at two places.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant by placing the First Information Report dated 25.06.2023 on record that on 21.06.2023 Manohar Singh-informant @ Manna was the driver of applicant and he was in the habit of taking drugs. It has come to the notice of the applicant that Manohar Singh-informant also made his son addict by providing him different kind of drugs including injections. At this applicant was infuriated and asked Manohar Singh @ Manna-informant to clear his accounts and leave the job. According to the applicant when he came back to his place he found that all the goods and valuable items were missing; he expressed that Manohar Singh has committed theft in his house. On the report of the applicant no FIR was registered by S.H.O. concerned. 7. It is also submitted by the applicant that from the perusal of the documents on record prima facie it appears that the allegation of Section 307 of IPC of firing appears to be exaggeration made by the informant-Manohar Singh.

6. It is further submitted by the applicant that the applicant is 67 years of age and is suffering from various age related ailments.

7. Per contra, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State, as per instructions, submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

8. To this learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though there was old criminal history of the applicant but the same was quashed by the judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.03.2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1074 of 2012, Jasbinder Singh Gill vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was handed over to this Court at the time of argument.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire case, facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

11. It is hereby directed that in the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2023 Arti