Allowed

Pawan Kumar @ Pannu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2020CRM-M/21732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner. The court held that since the deceased was injured by a firearm and the petitioner only carried an iron rod, further detention served no purpose as no prosecution witness had been examined.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or concerned magistrate.

Pawan Kumar @ Pannu Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-21732-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 18.11.2020

Pawan Kumar @ Pannu

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶9

Present:Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.

¶11

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶12

¶13

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.85 dated 22.5.2020 under Sections 302/148/149/506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala wherein it is alleged that on 21.5.2020 when the complainant Davinder along with his brother Shamsher Singh and nephew Vansh Kumar were going towards market, they came across S.K.Kharoud @ Kanwar Randeep Singh, Sajan, Abbu, Lali who were armed with ' swords' , Chand Mohd., Phool Mohd. who were armed with 'gandasas', Pawan armed with an 'iron rod' , Tara Dutt armed with a 'gandasa' , Parmod @ Modi armed with a ' rod' , Vicky Topi, Twinkle who were carrying 'swords' , Prince Chakki Wala armed with a 'gandasi' accompanied by 5-6 unidentified persons. It is alleged that S.K. Kharoud raised a lalkara exhorting his companions to catch hold of Shamsher and not to spare him. It is alleged that thereafter S.K. Kharoud, Abbu and Chand

¶15

KAMAL KUMAR 2020.11.18 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

2 CRM-M-21732-2020 (O&M)

¶17

Mohd. took out their pistols and fired shots in the air. Sajan is alleged to have fired a shot towards complainant's brother with an intention to kill him hitting him below his left arm pit. It is alleged that thereafter the remaining accused who were carrying 'gandasis' and other weapons brandished their weapons in air while stating that the lion has been killed.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where as many as 17 persons have been falsely implicated in the FIR although it is a case of a single injury sustained by the deceased and that too with the help of an firearm whereas the petitioner even as per the FIR was armed with an 'iron rod' only.

¶19

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly and was carrying an 'iron rod', while his companions were carrying other lethal weapons, no case for grant of bail is made out. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner in case released on bail is likely to abscond as in the present case, P.O. proceedings are already pending against other 5 co-accused. The learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 5 months and that he is not wanted in any other case.

¶20

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

¶21

Although the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, but it is not disputed that it is a case of a single injury received by the deceased with a firearm, which would show that the petitioner had not caused any injury with the 'iron rod' which he was allegedly carrying. In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 5 months and

¶22

KAMAL KUMAR 2020.11.18 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-21732-2020 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

conclusion of trial is likely to take time and not even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

¶26

The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶27

18.11.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶28

KAMAL KUMAR 2020.11.18 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pawan Kumar @ Pannu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar @ Pannu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadvinder Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rinku @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Swaranjeet Singh @ Sunny Vs State of Punjab

Karsimran Singh Vs State of Punjab