Allowed

Harmesh Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2013CRM-M/37553/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for petitioner booked for offences including exhortation, noting injury attributed to non-applicant and petitioner on bail in other cases.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; upon arrest, petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing bonds and complying with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Harmesh Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M No. 37553 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 37553 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: March 2, 2013

Harmesh Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶12

Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. Arun Gosin, Advocate, along with respondent No. 2, Gurbachan Singh Babehali.

¶15

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶16

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Harmesh Singh, son of Shiv Singh, resident of Village Ghot Pokher, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 307 and 452, IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No. 64, dated 15.7.2012, registered at Police Station Tibber, District Gurdaspur.

¶17

CRM-M No. 37553 of 2012 (O&M) 2

¶18

Learned counsel contends that out of political vendetta, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as many as six more cases were registered against the petitioner and his family members after the present ruling party came into power in the State of Punjab. He further submits that on account of SGPC elections, the elder brother of the petitioner has dispute with the supporters of the ruling party. He further submits that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also exhortation (Lalkara) has been attributed to the petitioner. He also contends that the simple injury alleged to have been caused by the fire arm was attributed to the non-applicant, Niranjan Singh. He also contends that the injury was found near the ankle joint of right leg of the injured. He further submits that in all the other cases registered against the petitioner, he is on bail. He also contends that applicability of Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC, would be a moot point during trial.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Sohan Lal of Police Station, Tibber, District Gurdaspur, concedes the fact that the injury found on the person of the injured was simple one. He further concedes that the petitioner has been assigned the role of exhortation only. He also concedes that the alleged injury was caused by non-applicant, Niranjan Singh. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the

¶20

CRM-M No. 37553 of 2012 (O&M) 3

¶21

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the fact that the petitioner is on bail in rest of the cases registered against him.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Gurbachan Singh Babehali, submit that he has been elected twice as the Member of the Legislative Assembly. They further submit that respondent No. 2 is a popular leader of the area and there is no question on his part to indulge in such like activities. They further submit that just to seek the sympathy of the Court, the petitioner is levelling false allegations against respondent No. 2. 5. Heard.

¶23

Concededly the petitioner alleged to have exhorted. The simple injury received by the injured was attributed to the non-applicant, Niranjan Singh. In all the other cases registered against the petitioner, he is on bail. Perusal of the police file would reveal that immediately after the occurrence, the police had arrived at the spot. A site plan was prepared, but the place where the blood had fallen from the injury of the injured and the place from where the empty shell was recovered, have not been shown.

¶24

Without commenting on the allegations levelled in the petition against respondent No. 2, the present criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the

¶25

CRM-M No. 37553 of 2012 (O&M) 4 petitioner is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, Harmesh Singh, son of Shiv Singh, resident of Village Ghot Pokher, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, he shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶26

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) March 2, 2013 JUDGE Pkapoor

Harmesh Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmesh Singh 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

Mohd. Salim & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anupam Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Falia Vs Ved Parkash & Anr.

Sandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab