Allowed

Harsh Thapar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2012CRM-M/25306/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, finding the provisions moot till trial, noting lack of arms recovery and prior bail for a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim direction dated 23.8.2012 made absolute subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Harsh Thapar Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No. M-25306 of 2012 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No. M-25306 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision:-21.9.2012

¶5

Harsh Thapar ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶9

Present:Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶10

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J . (Oral)

¶11

Petitioner Harsh Thapar son of Parmod Chand has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case, registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Ajay Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, by virtue of FIR No.129 dated 16.11.2011, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) by the Police of Police Station Division No.1 (Kotwali), District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.

¶12

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

¶14

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was just present

¶15

CRM No. M-25306 of 2012 (O&M) -2-

¶16

at the spot along with his other co-accused Sanjeev Kumar and Sandeep Kumar. Pistol was stated to have already been recovered from Sanjeev Kumar, whereas, knife was recovered from Sandeep Kumar-accused. The petitioner was not found in possession of any arms. Under these circumstances, whether the provisions of section 25 of the Act, are attracted, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case.

¶17

Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that Ajay Kumar, similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, by way of order dated 1.8.2012, vide CRM No. M-19788 of 2012.

¶18

Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (M.M.S.Bedi, J.), passed the following order on 23.8.2012:-

¶19

“The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the basis of secret information that petitioner along with others armed with weapons were present at a crossing with an objective to facilitate the passing over of the hosiery goods to save excise duty and in case a raid was conducted, the culprits could be apprehended.

¶20

No recovery has been effected from the petitioner though the FIR has been registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶21

Notice of motion for 21.9.2012.

¶22

Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer if the petitioner has not yet been arrested.”

¶23

CRM No. M-25306 of 2012 (O&M) -3-

¶24

At this stage, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Manjit Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at present.

¶25

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts & 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 the trial of the main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim order dated 23.8.2012 is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC.

¶26

Needless to mention that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection. At the same time, nothing recorded here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the main case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only.

¶27

21.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Harsh Thapar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Thapar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Santokh and Anr. Vs State of Pb.

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harender & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vinod Alias Vicky Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana