Present:- Mr. Chanchal K. Singla Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153343
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Chanchal K. Singla Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m-20497 of 2014 decided on: 30.06.2014 charanvir singh @ bhangu ....petitioner(s) versus state of punjab ....respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice m.m.s.bedi present:- mr.chanchal k. singla, advocate for the petitioner. mr.ankur jain, aag, punjab. m.m.s.bedi, j (oral).petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of surinder singh alleging that his car driven by gurupkar singh was intercepted by 5-6 undentified persons having a black colour car and motorcycle. surinder singh and gurupkar singh were fired by s.k.alias kanwar randip singh but the bullet passed through the window pane of the car of the complainant and hit gurupkar singh on his left upper arm near the bicep and splinters of the glass window pane hit surinder singh complainant on chin. gurupkar singh allegedly sped away the car when the petitioner fired one more shot. counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no witness to support the allegation that petitioner also fired. on the basis of the record and on the instruction imparted by asi jarnail singh, mr.ankur jain, learned state counsel informs that the name of sharma jyoti 2014.07.01 16:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-20497 of 2014 -2- the petitioner having fired is not mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses but this fact had cropped up during cross investigation on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner under section 27 of the indian evidence act which led to the recovery of .32 bore weapon. after hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the state and going through the record, i am of the considered opinion that it would be a debatable issue as to whether on the basis of statement recorded under section 27 of the indian evidence act, petitioner could be said to have fired with the weapon which was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f.17.11.2013. without expression of any opinion on merits of the case,the petition is allowed. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. (m.m.s.bedi) 30.06.2014 judge jyoti 1 sharma jyoti 2014.07.01 16:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20497 of 2014 Decided on: 30.06.2014 Charanvir Singh @ Bhangu ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present:- Mr.Chanchal K.

Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL).Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Surinder Singh alleging that his car driven by Gurupkar Singh was intercepted by 5-6 undentified persons having a black colour car and motorcycle.

Surinder Singh and Gurupkar Singh were fired by S.K.alias Kanwar Randip Singh but the bullet passed through the window pane of the car of the complainant and hit Gurupkar Singh on his left upper arm near the bicep and splinters of the glass window pane hit Surinder Singh complainant on chin.

Gurupkar Singh allegedly sped away the car when the petitioner fired one more shot.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no witness to support the allegation that petitioner also fired.

On the basis of the record and on the instruction imparted by ASI Jarnail Singh, Mr.Ankur Jain, learned State counsel informs that the name of Sharma Jyoti 2014.07.01 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20497 of 2014 -2- the petitioner having fired is not mentioned in the statement of any of the witnesses but this fact had cropped up during cross investigation on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which led to the recovery of .32 bore weapon.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State and going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that it would be a debatable issue as to whether on the basis of statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, petitioner could be said to have fired with the weapon which was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

The petitioner has been in custody w.e.f.17.11.2013.

Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case,the petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(M.M.S.BEDI) 30.06.2014 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Sharma Jyoti 2014.07.01 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh