High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 10 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 P&H CK 0102

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25 · Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 17, 18, 19, 20 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No.36847 of 2018
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 · 383 words

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 63 dated

26.06.2017, registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 17/18/19/20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 at Police

Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits previously the petitioner was involved in another FIR No. 193 dated 17.12.2016 with the allegations that

Jagtar Singh @ Jaggi and Taljit Singh @ Jimmi had sent an amount of £1000 (one thousand pound) from England to petitioner and the petitioner had

given the same to one Tarlok Singh @ Laddi for the purpose of purchasing a weapon in order to commit the crime in which a person was murdered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid Tarlok Singh @ Laddi, who was accused in FIR No. 51 dated 13.06.2016, under

Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, already stands discharged in the said FIR and on that account, the petitioner was

granted regular bail by this Court in aforesaid FIR No. 193, vide order dated 24.04.2016 passed in CRM-M-15443-2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present FIR, co-accused Gurpreet was arrested and recovery of a country made revolver along

with five bullets were effected from him and on his disclosure, the petitioner is named in the present FIR and no recovery was effected from the

petitioner. It is further submitted that co-accused Gurpreet has already been released on regular bail.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Harwinder Singh, has not disputed the factual position.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the facts that the petitioner is on regular on aforesaid FIR No. 193 dated 17.12.2016; he

was named in the present FIR on the disclosure of co-accused Gurpreet who has already been granted regular bail; petitioner is in judicial custody

since 07.02.2018 and also considering the fact that challan has been presented and conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, the instant

petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty

Magistrate concerned.