Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34271 (PNJ)

PARASDEEP SINGH ALIAS PARAS v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/14928/2025 · 2025-05-21

Rajesh Bhardwaj

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-14928-2025 1 243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14928-2025 Date of decision : 21.05.2025 Parasdeep Singh @ Paras ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. G.K. Mann, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill, Advocate and Ms. Armandeep Kaur Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Arora, D.A.G., Punjab assisted by ASI Manjit Singh. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Present second petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0100 dated 05.06.2024, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Indras. It was alleged that on 12.05.2024 at about 8:30 pm, he along with his friend Karandeep Singh were going on a motorcycle which was being driven by Karandeep Singh and he was sitting pillion. When they reached near Dhulkalan at about 9:00 pm then Noor armed with pistol, Mard empty handed, Sachin @ Gharich armed with datar, Suraj @ Ballu armed with pistol along with 4-5 unidentified persons surrounded them. Suraj raised lalkara then Mard pushed the motorcycle and then Noor fired a gun shot from his pistol which hit on his right side of abdomen. Sachin gave blows with his datar on Karandeep Singh and Suraj @ Ballu fired shot in the air. On raising POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14928-2025 2 alarm, all the assailants along with weapons escaped from the place of occurrence. Rohit resident of their village arranged the vehicle and shifted them to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, who were discharged on 18.05.2024. The request was made to take legal action against the culprits. It was alleged that talks of compromise were going on, however, the same did not succeeded and the FIR was lodged. On registration of FIR, investigation commenced. Petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2024. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court, Ambala vide order dated 25.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-59806-2024 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 20.01.2025, passed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing of present second petition. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that neither the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence nor any overt act has been attributed against him. However, later on with due deliberations during investigation, he was implicated in the present case. He submits that the enquiry regarding the implication of the petitioner was carried out by DSP, Attari, who found the implication of the petitioner to be without any basis. She submits that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 12.05.2024, whereas the FIR was registered after a delay of 24 days i.e. on 05.06.2024. She submits that one of the co-accused, who was named in the FIR, namely, Sahilnoor Singh @ Mard, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14928-2025 3 22.10.2024. She submits that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest and the investigation is already complete. She submits that there is no credible evidence produced against the petitioner regarding his complicity and thus, he deserves to be granted bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the complainant in the present case has been fired upon by the co-accused and hence, rightly the petitioner along with the co-accused have been prosecuted for the offence Section 307 IPC. It is submitted that investigation though completed but charges are yet to be framed. He produced the custody certificate of the petitioner on record. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 12.05.2024 whereas the FIR was registered on 05.06.2024. The petitioner though was not named in the FIR, however, he has been arrayed as an accused during investigation. As submitted, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the complainant. The co-accused, namely, Sahilnoor Singh @ Mard, is already on anticipatory bail. The custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed an incarceration of 09 months and 15 days as on 20.05.2025. Custody certificate further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, however, he is on bail in the said case. 6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14928-2025 4 for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21.05.2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) ps-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document