Ranjit Singh @ Krishan vs State Of Punjab

Avneesh Jhingan, J

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

This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 343 dated 28.12.2019, under Sections 341, 379B, 382 of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 25/27

of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Patran District Patiala.

FIR is at the instance of Sukhjinder Singh and the allegations are that on 27.12.2019, he alongwith his friends Ishant Bansal and Pammy Singh went

for collecting money from Malkeet Singh (Brother-in-law of Sukhjinder Singh) in Hyundi i-20 car bearing registration No. PB-13BD-1587. After

getting ` One Lakh they were returning, at about 4.00 PM near Village Dugal Kalan, the car was surrounded by one white colour Cruze car and Swift

Dezire car bearing registration No. PB-13AF-4767. Amandeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Krishan Singh alias Ranjit Singh (petitioner), Gaggi Sharma,

Simranjit Singh alias Gola and three unknown persons came out from the Cruze car. Amandeep Singh gave a slap to the complainant and Gurpreet

Singh was carrying revolver. Accused snatched the car and fled away alongwith money and mobile of Ishant Bansal which was also lying in the car.

Mr. Ashish Rana, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIR is false and is result of political rivalry. The petitioner has not been

attributed any role. He relies upon the affidavit of Ishant Bansal annexed as Annexure P-2 to state that no such incident took place. The contention is

that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

Learned counsel for the State has filed the status report. She submits, on instructions from ASI Chamkaur Singh, that the matter is being investigated.

The allegations are serious and the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR as Ranjit Singh @ Krishan Singh. It is a case where the car and money

was snatched and one of the accused was carrying gun. She opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail and submits that custodial interrogation is

required.

The accused acted in a pre-planned manner surrounded the car and thereafter fled away taking the car, money and mobile of Ishant Bansal. It would

be pertinent to note that one Gurpreet Singh who was accomplice of the petitioner was carrying the revolver. The bald contention of the petitioner that

he was named as a result of the political rivalry is not prima facie supported by any material at this stage. Moreover, any observation of this Court, at

this stage, on the said aspect would influence the investigation.

Petitioner was accompanying other accused at time of incident. The reliance on the affidavit of Ishant Bansal to state that the said incident never

happened, shows that the petitioner is in a position to influence the witnesses of the case. The contention of the petitioner that no role has been

attributed to him is not sufficient to grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, he was occupant of the white Cruze

car and the allegations are that the petitioner along with his accomplices snatched the car along with cash and mobile.

No case is made out for granting anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed.