Bhag Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Bhag Singh son of Tarlok Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 02 dated 13.01.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 22, 2013:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The only allegations assigned to him are that he provided his license weapon to his co-accused Kuldeep Singh, who fired shot. No other specific role or overt-act is attributed to him. He has no connection with the incident in question, in any manner, and has been falsely involved in the present case by the complainant, in order to wreak vengeance. The argument is that it is a case of version and cross-version, in which, Buta Singh co-accused of the petitioner (non-petitioner) had also received grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon, at the hands of complainant''s party and separate case was registered against them. The argument further proceeds that moreover the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-6501 of 2013, by way of order dated 11.03.2013.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 05.08.2013.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Gobind Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR nor any specific role or overt-act is attributed to him. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. sIn the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated July 22, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.