Judgment:
CRM No.M-17840 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.M-17840 of 2014 Date of Decision:-30.5.2014 Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mikhail Kad, AAG Punjab for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner Jagdeep Singh son of Gurmit Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Amandeep Singh @ Amna son of Bhajan Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Ravi son of Malkit Singh, Jatinder Singh son of Jagjit Singh, Rajwant Singh @ Kaka son of Gurdial Singh etc., vide FIR No.170 dated 12.12.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 307 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.05.30 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-17840 of 2014 (O&M) 2 4. Tersely, the prosecution claimed that on 12.12.2013, all the accused came to the place of occurrence in a car, where main accused Amandeep Singh @ Amna fired shots, which hit Johny Arora. According to the prosecution, petitioner had just accompanied the accused. Neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned nor any specific role or particular injury is attributed to him in the FIR. He was subsequently involved in this case, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of main accused Amandeep Singh @ Amna. In that eventuality, as to whether the provision of vicarious liability, as contemplated under Section 34 IPC is attracted to the facts of the instant case against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, Jaswinder Singh @ Ravi, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner, was granted the concession of bail by this court, by virtue of order dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure P3), rendered in CRM No.M-11417 of 2014. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of bail to the present petitioner under the similar set of circumstances as well.
5. Be that as it may, petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2013. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.05.30 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-17840 of 2014 (O&M) 3 the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.
7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. Sd/- 30.5.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.05.30 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh