Judgment:
CRM No.M-19803 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH220CRM No.M-19803 of 2014 Date of Decision:04.07.2014 Sarabjeet Singh @ Gagan .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Pratham Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Sarabjeet Singh @ Gagan son of Surinder Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his friend Tarandeep Singh(son-in-law of the complainant), his parents and other relatives, vide FIR No.109 dated 16.04.2014(Annexure P-17), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506 IPC (the offences punishable under Sections 386, 115, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of The Arms Act were added later on), by the police of Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going Rani Seema 2014.07.08 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-19803 of 2014 2 through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. As is evident from the record that the marriage of Amandeep Kaur, daughter of complainant-Varinder Pal Singh, was solemnized with Tarandeep Singh on 25.11.2013, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Maharaja Grand Palace, Ludhiana. After solemnization of the marriage, they went abroad for honeymoon and returned to India on 10.12.2013. Unfortunately, the marriage did not survive and she left her matrimonial home on 20.01.2014. Thereafter, litigation started between both the parties. Consequently, Amandeep Kaur, daughter of the complainant, has lodged a criminal case against her husband, parents-in- law and their other relatives, by way of FIR No.35 dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342, 406, 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC in the Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. Various litigations ensued between the parties, which were decided by this Court. The efforts for amicable settlement between them proved futile.
5. Sequelly, the complainant was stated to have again lodged the present criminal case against the husband, parents-in-law of his daughter and other relatives of the husband, at the instance of higher police officials and his friends, who attended the marriage of his daughter, mentioned therein para 2.24(page 13) of the petition, by means of instant FIR(Annexure P-17).
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that petitioner- Rani Seema 2014.07.08 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-19803 of 2014 3 Sarabjit Singh is only the friend of Tarandeep Singh, husband of daughter of the complainant, who was pursuing his legal matters. Inviting the attention of this Court to the record and various Annexures appended therewith the petition, the contention of the learned counsel that in the background of the influence of the complainant with the police, the possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out, at this stage, has considerable force.
7. Moreover, neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned nor any specific role or particular part is attributed to him in the FIR. He was subsequently involved in the present case only, in the wake of disclosure statement of his co-accused Robin son of Om Parkash. On instructions from the investigating officer, learned State Counsel has fairly acknowledged that there is no other evidence on record against the petitioner, except the pointed disclosure statement of his co-accused. What is the evidentiary value, admissibility and acceptability of such solitary disclosure statement of the co-accused of the petitioner, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Haricharan Kurmi Versus State of Bihar, 1964 AIR (SC) 1184, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Meaning thereby, very weak type of evidence is available on record against the petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2014. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The investigation has already been completed by the police. There is no history of his previous involvement Rani Seema 2014.07.08 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-19803 of 2014 4 in any other criminal case. Since, even charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. July 04, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.08 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh