Shingara Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Shingara Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Jaswant Singh son of Natha and Rana @ Ranjit Singh son of Shingara Singh, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them along with their co-accused, vide FIR No. 125 dated 08.07.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 382, 452, 427, 447, 506, 511 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Gurharsahai, District Ferozepur, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on August 19, 2013:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that neither any injury nor any specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioners in the FIR. They have been falsely implicated in this case, by the complainant, in order to wreak vengeance. The argument is that even it is a case of version and cross-version, in which, Piara Singh from petitioner''s side has also sustained injury. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, by this Court, vide order dated 08.10.2012, in Crl. Misc. No. M-30136 of 2012 and by means of order dated 17.10.2012, in Crl. Misc. No. M-30007 of 2012.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 04.09.2013.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Gurdip Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated August 19, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.