CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Balwinder Singh vs Union Territory Chandigarh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 June 1987 · Citation: (1987) 2 RCR(Criminal) 207

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3627-M of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 380 words

Sukhdev Singh, J.

1.

Balwinder Singh has filed this application under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of bail in case of F.I.R. No. 403 of 1986 under section 307 34, Indian Penal Code Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Terrorist & ]Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the law.

2.

The allegations against the petitioner are that on 8th September, 1996, at about 10.45 a.m., Constable Subhash Chander and Driver Sikater Singh Constable, on receipt of a wireless message went on their motor cycle to T Point of Sector 9 towards Sector 8 Chandigarh. When they were in ''Sector 9 two persons along with pistols in their hands were seen running from T point to Sector 8/9. Constable Sikater Singh stopped the motor cycle at once. Both these constables ran towards the persons who were seen running and get away by crossing the small compound wall of House NO. 74, Sector 9. Constable Sikater Singh captured one of them, those name later on came to be known as Balwinder Singh Brar. He was carrying a pistol. At this, Balwinder Singh said, Kabul, what are you seeing ? I have been caught, fire at these Salas. On this KabLi Singh fired at the Constables, but they were not hit. Kabul Singh ran away.

3.

It is clear from the allegations that Balvinder Singh had not used his pistol in any manner whatsoever. It was a licensed pistol. So, no offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act has been made out.

4.

As regards the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, nobody was hit. The petitioner is not alleged to have been fired from his pistol. Be has been in custody for the last about 10 months and the trial of the case is likely to take some time.

5.

Keeping in view these facts, I allow this application and grant bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, who will take an undertaking from the petitioner that he will not commit any offence while on bail. Anything said in this order is not an expression of opinion and should not influence the trial court.