Gurmeet Singh vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been preferred seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C, in case FIR No. 91 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 registered in Police

Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 307, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act.

Status report stands filed stating therein that on 30.06.2016, a telephonic information was given by complainant Kuldeep Narayan in Police Station,

Nagrota Bagwan that his friend Sanjeev Thakur had been shot at by a person namely, Jatt and Sanjeev Thakur had been taken to CHC, Nagrota

Bagwan for treatment, whereupon police party had rushed to CHC Nagrota Bagwan and recorded statement of Kuldeep Narayan under Section 154,

Cr.P.C, wherein he (complainant) had stated that on 29.06.2016 at about 9.15 p.m. his friend Sanjeev Thakur had come to his house and at about

10.00 p.m. he had come to the gate of his house to see off his friend. Car of his friend was parked adjacent to the gate. The moment his friend

reached near his car, a vehicle bearing No. HP-39-3737 with two occupants, including Driver, came from the side of Nagrota Bagwan bus stand and

stopped behind the car of his friend. One of the occupants who was driving the vehicle was Ashu son of the owner of Akshay Palace and another

person had introduced himself as Jatt, who had come down from the vehicle and had hot exchange with his friend Sanjeev Thakur on the issue of

giving space to the vehicle by reversing and moving it forward. Later on that person had proclaimed that he is goon of Nagrota and no-one had dared

to touch him and thereafter he intended to assault Sanjeev Thakur physically and when Sanjeev Thakur had asked him to go back, the said person had

shot at Sanjeev Thakur with gun. The bullet had hit the right hand of Sanjeev Thakur. Thereafter, both the assailants had run away from the spot in

their vehicle and when complainant tried to stop them, Jatt had also pointed gun to him.

On the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. During investigation, Akshay Dhiman @ Akshu, co-

accused was arrested on 07.07.2016, who after remaining in judicial custody, was enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala vide order

dated 01.09.2016, whereas, petitioner Gurmeet Singh was not traceable and could not be arrested despite all out efforts as he had gone underground to

avoid his arrest.

It is stated in the status report that during investigation, it came in the notice that Gurmeet was a dreaded culprit who had been declared proclaimed

offender in case FIR No. 100/12 dated 02.09.2012 registered under Sections 363, 325, 323, 34 IPC in Police Station, Dera Baba Nanak, District

Gurdaspur and FIR No. 67/2012 registered under Sections 307, 399, 402, 419, 120B, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act in Police Station,

Mattewal, District Amritsar. It was found that in 2014 also, two other cases were registered in Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan against the petitioner

bearing FIR No. 9/2014 dated 10.01.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323 IPC and FIR No. 44/2014 dated 28.04.2014 under Sections 379,

34 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act and in those cases also, petitioner was not traceable and, therefore, steps were being taken for declaring

him proclaimed offender. Subsequently, it came in the notice that on 04.03.2018 petitioner had been apprehended by Punjab Police during a

‘Nakka’ at Dera Baba Nanak and a ‘Desi Katta’ (pistol) was also recovered from him and case FIR No. 29/2018 dated 04.03.2018

under Section 25 of Arms Act was registered against him. Thereafter, production warrant of petitioner was obtained from the Court of JMIC-II,

Kangra and after taking his custody, he was interrogated. Lastly, it is stated that there are number of cases registered against the petitioner and as of

now, he has been lodged in Central Jail, Hoshiarpur in various cases registered in Punjab.

So far as the trial in present case is concerned, with respect to progress therein, it is stated in status report that on 12.06.2019, the Court had issued

production warrant for presence of petitioner on 28.08.2019, but petitioner had not appeared. Thereafter, production warrant for 3.10.2019 was issued

and thereafter on 17.12.2019 again production warrant for 07.03.2019 was issued but petitioner could not appear on these dates and thereafter another

production warrant for 28.05.2020 was issued but because of CORONA pandemic, petitioner could not reach the Court. According to the status

report, petitioner had not appeared on any date fixed by the trial Court and now case has been fixed for further orders on 17.03.2021. Petitioner had

approached this Court earlier by filing Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1098 of 2020, which was dismissed on 10.11.2020. On the basis of information placed on

record by the respondent-State as well as petitioner it was found found, at that time, that petitioner had been enlarged on bail in all cases except FIR

No. 232 dated 03.09.2019 registered in Police Station, Islamabad, District Amritsar and, therefore, it was considered by the Court that enlarging the

petitioner on bail in the present case at this stage, would be a futile exercise as he would remain in judicial custody in Central Jail, Hoshiarpur for his

custody in case FIR No. 232/2019 referred supra and for his presence during trial, production warrants would be required to be issued every time.

Now, the petitioner has placed on record copy of order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 16.11.2020 in CRM-M-

36234 of 2020 titled as Gurmeet Singh versus State of Punjab, whereby petitioner has been enlarged on bail in FIR No. 232 dated 3.9.2019, after

passing of order by this Court dated 10th November, 2020 in Cr.M.P(M) No.1098 of 2020.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has local roots in Himachal Pradesh as his maternal uncles belong to

Shahpur District Kangra and, therefore, for ensuring his presence, he is also ready to furnish local surety and further undertakes to abide by any

conditions deemed fit by this Court to be imposed for enlarging him on bail.

Lastly, it is submitted that case was listed before the trial Court on 17.10.2020 and on that day, case has been adjourned for five months and next

date of hearing has been fixed for 17.03.2021 for passing further orders and, therefore, he has submitted that incarceration of the petitioner since July,

2018, for more than two years, is not serving no purpose as no effective proceedings in trial are taking place.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival contentions of parties, at this stage, though criminal antecedents of petitioner are not in

his favour, however, considering the fact that effective proceedings in present case are not taking place for failure of concerned agencies in producing

the petitioner in the Court despite issuance of production warrants by the Court and also period of detention, I consider that at this stage, petitioner is

entitled for bail. Accordingly, he is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties in the

like amount, one of which shall be local surety, as undertaken by the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge/trial Court, Kangra

within two weeks from today and also subject to the following conditions:-

i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe

or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

vii) that he shall furnish proof of his place of ordinary residence like certificate of Panchayat or any other authority which may be placed where his

mother, brother or wife are residing and he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his

availability to Police and/or during trial; and

viii) he shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

ix) petitioner shall not repeat commission of similar offence and in case of repetition of similar offence, bail granted in the present case shall be liable

to be cancelled, on taking appropriate steps by the police/prosecution.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality prosecution may

approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-

IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of

the bail application.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy

of the order, however, he may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Dasti Copy.