High Court of Punjab and Haryana declined grant of pre-arrest anticipatory bail in a FIR involving election-related dispute with affray and use of firearms. The court held custodial interrogation was necessary.
Grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. denied. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
Crl. Misc. No. M-29572 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-29572 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2012.
Sohan Singh Goga
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Shri Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.93 dated 10.6.2012, registered at Police Station Shimla Puri, Ludhiana City, under Sections 307, 427, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury has not been caused by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the subsequent day, the injury has been attributed to Amandip Singh. As per the medico-legal report, injuries are simple in nature and there is no opinion from the doctor that such injuries have been caused by fire arm. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that this is an election dispute. When the injuries were caused, number of persons were there at that time. Learned counsel further relies upon Annexures P-2 and P-3 wherein it is alleged that simple injuries have been received due to clash between the supporters of various candidates. Learned counsel further relied upon
Crl. Misc. No. M-29572 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :-
panchayati compromise Annexure P-4 whereby the compromise has been effected with Inderjit Singh who was one of the injured and eye witness to the occurrence.
I have considered the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the FIR. Perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner has fired in air as well as straight towards the people and certainly fire arm injuries are there, whether they are simple or grievous, it does not make any difference specifically when the offence has been committed by number of persons and Sections 148 and 149 IPC are there.
So far as contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. attributes injuries to Amandip Singh, at this stage, said statement cannot be taken into consideration because the petitioner has effected compromise with the injured as a result of which he has made statement. Furthermore, it appears that at this stage, the petitioner has influenced the prosecution witnesses and has got affidavits of some of the injured. Admittedly, the person who has initiated the process of lodging the FIR has given an eye witness account. Even the compromise is not with that person. In these circumstances although the offence is stated to be committed due to clash during election process, this cannot be taken as a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. For recovery of fire arm and weapons, custodial interrogation is necessary. I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.
Dismissed.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
September 25, 2012. kadyan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving firing during an election dispute where the petitioner fired a firearm.
Whether a subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. attributing injuries to another can override the FIR when a compromise has been effected.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sohan Singh Goga
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
