CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mani Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 September 2022 · Citation: (2022) 09 P&H CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 40984 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

20 paragraphs · 327 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

15

14.01.2020

City sunam, District Sangrur

307, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and section 201, 336 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act added later on

1.

The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares that “No such and similar FIR is registered/pending against the petitioners”.

3.

The petitioners allegedly fired multiple shots at the complainant party and two shots hit two persons.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their families.

5.

Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6.

The petitioners’ counsel seeks bail on parity because the other accused, who had not fired shots, were granted bail, whereas the petitioners, who allegedly fired multiple shots, two of which hit two persons of the complainant party, are not entitled to bail on the grounds of parity. The next submission that the matter stands compromised is also of no help to the petitioners because of the gravity of the offence.

7.

The allegations are serious and offence heinous. The evidence collected so far points out that the petitioners brutally and mercilessly fired multiple shots at the complainant party, and this act does not entitle the petitioners to bail at this stage.

8.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

9.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to these comments.

Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.