High CourtsSingle Bench

Harpal Singh @ Heera @ Jallad vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 P&H CK 0287

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avneesh Jhingan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148, 149, 394, 397 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27, 54, 59
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 1964 Of 2021
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

19 paragraphs · 379 words

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

This is a second petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 39 dated 05.02.2020 under Sections 397, 148, 149 IPC (Section 394 IPC added later on) and

Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar District Amritsar.

The FIR was at the instance of Amanjot Singh. It was stated that he runs a shop by name of Gyan Enterprise at Fatehgarh Churian road Amritsar.

On 05.02.2020 at about 7.20 PM, three persons riding on motorcycle and two persons riding on scooty encircled his father in front of the shop and

demanded keys of the car. His father refused to hand over the keys. The accused fired on the father of the complainant, one bullet hit on the thigh and

second hit on the calf muscle and 3/4 more shots were fired thereafter. The accused ran away on their vehicles along with their weapons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.20, challan has been produced and no further recovery is to be

made. There is no report to show that the shots have been fired from the pistol recovered from the petitioner.

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, after arrest, got recovered .32 bore pistol along with magazine. He has been duly identified by the

complainant. The charges are yet to be framed and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility to influencing the witnesses. She

further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as there are three more cases filed against him. She submits that one of the co-accused is yet

to be arrested.

The petitioner earlier also applied for a bail in this Court, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 03.09.2020.

Considering the incident is of snatching the car; the accused were carrying fire arms weapons. During the investigation, the petitioner along with their

co-accused were arrested and on his disclosure statement, .32 bore pistol along with magazine were recovered, the petitioner has been duly identified

by the complainant; charges are yet to be framed, no case is made out for granting bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The petition is dismissed.