Allowed

Manpreet Singh Alias Mannu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2023CRM-M/46244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to an undertrial prisoner charged with attempt to murder and possessing a firearm, dismissing the State's apprehension of tampering with evidence as investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

Manpreet Singh Alias Mannu Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:123902

¶2

CRM-M-46244-2023 (O&M)

¶3

227

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-46244-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2023

¶6

Manpreet Singh @ Mannu

….Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶12

Present: - Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG Punjab.

¶14

Mr. N.K. Awasthi, Advocate for complainant.

¶15

¶16

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶17

After being declined bail by the trial Court, petitioner before this Court seeks his release as an undertrial in a case bearing FIR No.134 dated 26.07.2023, registered under Section 307, 336, 323, 148, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act'), at Police Station, Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran.

¶18

According to the prosecution's case, on 24.07.2023, the complainant, Vishal Singh, accompanied by his relative Karan, who is related to his uncle Sukhchain Singh, was riding a motorcycle to the market. They stopped near a shop, and Vishal entered the shop. Meanwhile, Karan was turning the motorcycle when a white car attempted to reverse and hit the motorcycle. Karan raised his voice to stop the car, but the driver ignored him, leading to a collision. Vishal exited the shop and identified Manpreet Singh, also known as Monu, as the driver. They had a minor argument and exchanged harsh words before dispersing. As they continued on the motorcycle, the occupants of the white car intercepted them on the road and attempted to strike the motorcycle. To avoid further danger, the motorcycle's rider got off and moved to the dirt path. On the same day, at around 6:00 p.m., two cars, one white and the other smoke-black in color, stopped at the

¶19

Gharyala bus stand. The petitioner, Manpreet Singh alias Mannu, along with Lovepreet MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.09.21 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/ judgment

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

2023:PHHC:123902

¶22

CRM-M-46244-2023 (O&M)

¶23

Singh (Mantri), Lakhbir Singh (Lakha), Gurlal Singh, Manreet Singh (Manna), and Doctor Karnail Singh, exited the cars. Dr. Karnail Singh shouted to catch hold of the complainant, prompting the petitioner to draw a .32 bore pistol from his waistband and fire shots into the air. The other three individuals began assaulting the complainant. Meanwhile, Lakhbir Singh used an iron kara to inflict injuries on the complainant's head. To protect himself, the complainant sought refuge in a nearby salon. Gurlal Singh fired a gunshot at him, hitting the complainant's right leg near the knee, causing him to fall. Harpal Singh, who was in the vicinity, witnessed the entire incident. Both victims screamed for help, and all the accused fled the scene. Injured Vishal Singh was subsequently admitted to the hospital. Ravi Singh also suffered injuries during the entire episode. The petitioner was arrested on July 31, 2023, as a suspect and has been in custody since then.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner states that no injury has been attributed to the petiitoner and allegations qua him is that he had fired gunshots in the air. He further states that petitioneris a student of 10+2 and neither had any weapon in his possession nor even he had fired the same. Allegations have been made without any basis. He further states that complainant has also not supported the prosecution version and in any case, complainant is also not pressing any charges against him. The trial is likely to result in acquittal of the petitioner, contends the learned counsel. Petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶25

3.1. Learned counsel further contends that complainant side had attacked the petitioner and during this period, petitioner suffered gunshot injury on the thigh of left leg with .32 bore postol fired by Ravi Singh, a friend of complainant. Petitioner had also lodged a General Diary No.035 dated 29.07.2023 in this regard. Copy of MLR is contained at Annexure P-2 and copy of General Diary is contained at Annexure P-3. The FIR in question was registered on 26.07.2023, after an unexplained delay of 02 days.

¶26

3.2. Learned counsel for petitioner furthersubmits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is not required for further custodial interrogation.

¶27

MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.09.21 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/ judgment

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

2023:PHHC:123902

¶30

CRM-M-46244-2023 (O&M)

¶31

There is no likelihood of petitioner tampering with evidence and/ or influencing prosecution witnesses.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposes the bail petition. He submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence. If released on bail, there is likelihood of petitioner fleeing from trial proceedings and/or tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. He though admits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

¶33

4.1. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for complainant did not controvert that complainant has not supported the prosecution version.

¶34

I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

¶35

On a Court query, learned State counsel, under instructions from ASI Jatinder Singh, submits that challan is likely to be presented soon. Investigation is thus complete qua petitioner, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is determined. Allegations against petitioner are a matter of trial at this stage. Conclusion of trial is still likely to take long time as it is proceeding at a snail pace. Whereas, petitioner has already been languishing in jail for the past more than 01½ month, being behind bars since 31.07.2023. 7. Petitioner is being kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/or influence witnesses. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency.

¶36

It is stated that petitioner is a student of 10+2 and his continued incarceration will ruin his future prospects. Having a fixed abode and clean antecedents, it is unlikely that petitioner poses any flight risk and/or will flee from trial proceedings.

¶37

Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.

¶38

MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.09.21 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/ judgment

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

2023:PHHC:123902

¶41

CRM-M-46244-2023 (O&M)

¶42

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.

¶43

11 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for limited purpose of bail hearing alone and learned trial Court shall proceed without being influenced with this order.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶45

(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE

¶46

September 20, 2023 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶47

MAHAVIR SINGH 2023.09.21 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/ judgment

¶48

Page 4 of 4

Manpreet Singh Alias Mannu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh Alias Mannu 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

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Saddam Vs State of Haryana

Prabhleen Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Manpreet Singh Alias Money Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohammad Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.