Amarjit Singh @ Makhan vs State Of Punjab

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J

(The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.154

dated 07.11.2019 registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of

the Arms Act, 1989 in Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

Brief facts of the case are that on 07.11.2019 information was received in Police Station Sadar Kotkapura regarding murder of Sant Dayal Dass in

the Dera Baba Harka Dass Kotsukhia by two unknown persons who fled away from the spot. Pursuant to registration of the above-said FIR, police

investigated the case and during investigation found that co-accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha and Amrik Singh @ Sheru had murdered Sand

Dayal Dass at the instance of Sant Jarnail Dass who was the main conspirator and gave financial assistance to co-accused Harmeet Singh @ Rubal

and Amrjit Singh @ Makhan (the petitioner) who both in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched scouted the place/conducted recce before the

occurrence and provided information to Sant Jarnail Dass to facilitate the crime.

The petitioner, who is in custody since his arrest, has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail.

The petition has been opposed by the respondent-State in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Balkar Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Sub Division Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and have gone through the relevant record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was not named in the FIR

and had no role in the commission of murder of Sant Dayal Dass. The petitioner and Harmeet Singh @ Rubal are alleged to have done recce of the

place of occurrence at the instance of Sant Jarnail Dass and to have been paid amount of Rs.10,000/- for the same purpose by him. The petitioner is

an electrician and he had installed cameras in the Dera in question for security purposes. The petitioner had been visiting the Dera frequently and he

knew the place. He could have given information about the place of occurrence and there was no need for him to conduct alleged recce. The

allegations regarding conducting of recce by him are false. The petitioner did not enter into any conspiracy with the co-accused. Recovery of amount

of Rs.5,000/- from him does not incriminate him for his involvement in the crime. Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. Charges are yet

to be framed. The trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and no useful purpose will be

served by further detention of the petitioner in custody during trial. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted regular bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner conducted RECCE and participated in commission of the crime. In view of the

nature of accusation and gravity of the offences, the petitioner does not deserve grant of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, role attributed to the petitioner who is

alleged to have done recce and is not alleged to have done any other act of participation in commission of the alleged offences and the fact that the

trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 but without commenting on the merits of the case,

I am inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing of personal and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.