Manpreet Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Manpreet Singh son of Partap Singh, has preferred the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 50 dated 26.05.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 304 IPC, by the police of Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since no offence punishable u/s 304 IPC is made out against the petitioner, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.

As is evident from the impugned order dated 14.06.2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, that during the course of investigation, the police found that the petitioner has no authority under the law to drive the vehicle. He was driving the car in a very rash and negligent manner, brought it (car) from the wrong side and struck it against the motorcycle of the deceased, with the intention to kill, culminating into the death of two young boys, namely, Bikramjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and Manpreet Singh son of Darshan Singh at the spot. The mere fact that the petitioner is claimed to be minor, ipso facto is not a ground to grant him anticipatory bail and to give a license to kill other innocent boys. Therefore, to my mind, prima facie, the offence punishable u/s 304 IPC is made out against the petitioner and he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this respect.

Keeping in view the gravity of the heinous offences and specific role, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this relevant context. If he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then the police will be deprived from effective investigation and to ascertain the fact and to collect evidence with regard to the intention of the accused to cause the death of two young persons. It would naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations for the commission of offences in question, to me, no extra-ordinary ground, much less cogent, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.