Allowed

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2022CRM-M/4788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order grants regular bail to a petitioner charged under the NDPS Act, IPC, and Arms Act. The court notes allegations of resistance to police and recovery of heroin and a revolver. While the petitioner raised issues regarding medical reports and recovery memo irregularities, the court ordered bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds.

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CRM-M-4788-2022

¶2

¶3

243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Gurjit Singh

¶5

CRM-M-4788-2022 Date of decision : April 18, 2022 ....... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab

¶8

....... Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶10

Present:- Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Akanksha, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

RAJ MOHAN SINGH J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in his second attempt in case bearing FIR No.0136, dated 08.12.2020, under Sections 21, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, under Sections 307, 353, 332, 186 of the IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran.

¶14

CRM-M-18568-2021 was got dismissed as withdrawn on 01.07.2021.

¶15

As per FIR, the occurrence took place on 08.12.2020 at 3.30 p.m. Jugraj Singh, Manbir Singh and the petitioner were apprehended on a motorcycle. The petitioner was driving the motorcycle whereas Jugraj Singh and Manbir Singh were the pillion riders. On seeing the police party, the petitioner alighted from the motorcycle and ran away towards

¶16

SARITA RANI 2022.04.18 17:42

¶17

CRM-M-4788-2022

¶18

¶19

the fields. As per allegations, the petitioner took out his revolver and fired gun shots on the police party which hit the right bicep and left thigh of ASI Bhag Singh. Thereafter, he succeeded in running away from the spot. Jugraj Singh and Manbir Singh were apprehended and from their personal search, 15 grams and 275 grams of heroin were recovered respectively. Jugraj Singh has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2021 passed in CRM-M No.17363 of 2021.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to medical record of the hospital submits that ASI Bhag Singh was hospitalised on 08.12.2020 at 12.50 p.m. and his time of examination was 1.00 p.m. On his medical examination, four injuries were found on his person. As per opinion of the Medical Board constituted for examination of injuries on the person of Bhag Singh, the injuries were found to be simple and possibility of firearm injuries was not ruled out. The Medical Board took note of following facts:-

¶21

“ 1) Bagh Singh S/o Amrik Singh MLR done at CH Patti on 8/12/2020 Pt. went LAMA (Left Against Medical Advice) on evening 3:52 PM 8/12/2020 without undergoing medico legal X-rays only treatment X-rays done.

¶22

2) Patient took treatment from Sandhu Hospital Patti. 3) Treating doctor at Sandhu Hospital has declared weapons as firearm injury.

¶23

4) Entry wound (injury No.1) is smaller than exit wound

¶24

SARITA RANI 2022.04.18 17:42

CRM-M-4788-2022

injury No.2.

5) Entry wound (injury No.3) is smaller than exit wound (injury No.4). 6) Blackening present around both entry wounds (Injury No.1+3).

¶29

7) Entry wounds (Injury No.1+3) have inverted moreinis After taking point No.3 to 7 hence injuries are simple in nature + possibility of 'firearm injury' cannot be ruled out.” Evidently, injured Bhag Singh after getting his MLR

¶30

conducted at Civil Hospital, Patti on 08.12.2020 left the hospital against medical advice at 3.50 p.m. without undergoing medico legal X-ray. Only treatment X-ray was done. Thereafter, the injured took treatment from a private hospital, namely, Sandhu Hospital, Patti. The treating doctor at Sandhu Hospital, Patti declared the injuries having been caused by a firearm. Entry wound of injury No.1 was smaller than exit wound i.e. Injury No.2. Entry wound (injury No.3) was smaller than exit wound (injury No.4). Blackening was present around both the entry wounds, which were having inverted moreinis. After seeing the aforesaid characteristics, the injuries were declared to be simple in nature by the Medical Board.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was allegedly apprehended soon after the first occurrence, when he was seen coming on a motorcycle when the police party was present at bypass Harike on the

¶32

SARITA RANI 2022.04.18 17:42

¶33

CRM-M-4788-2022

¶34

¶35

basis of suspicion. During search of the petitioner, .32 bore revolver was recovered from his right pocket besides a plastic bag containing 50 grams of heroin which is non-commercial in nature.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of second occurrence, a recovery memo was prepared in which no time of recovery and signature of the accused come forth.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment passed by this Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2019(4) RCR (Criminal) 741, to contend that in the very nature of allegations, the signature of the accusedpetitioner ought to have been obtained on the recovery memo, particularly when the recovery is stated to be in furtherance of the first occurrence in which recoveries of contraband were allegedly made from the co-accused.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ajay Malik Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649.

¶39

Learned State counsel however opposed the bail on the ground that the time of lodging of FIR i.e. 3.30 p.m. is duly explained as the time has to be given after completion of investigation. The second occurrence took place in continuity

¶40

SARITA RANI 2022.04.18 17:42

¶41

CRM-M-4788-2022

¶42

¶43

of that of first occurrence and by that time, the injured was hospitalised at 12.50 p.m. The petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2020.

¶44

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vinod Kumar, submits that supplementary challan shall be filed after receipt of FSL report in respect of matching configuration of the firearm viz. a viz. the pallets recovered from the body of the injured.

¶45

Looking to the facts and circumstances and without meaning anything on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

¶46

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

¶47

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be

¶48

construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.

¶49

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶50

April 18, 2022 sarita Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable: Yes / No

¶51

SARITA RANI 2022.04.18 17:42

Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Zorawar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Neer Kumar Alias Neer Kumar Bhujel Vs State of Haryana and Others

Joginder Singh @ Bittu Vs State of Punjab

Yuval Kundu(Minor)through His Father Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Janta Dhalle Ke Co-Op. L and C Society Ltd. Moga Vs State of Punjab and Others