Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 October, 2009

 CRM No. M-27580 of 2009                                  1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                 CRM No. M-27580 of 2009 (O&M)
                                 Date of decision: 05.10.2009

Ranjit Singh                                          ...Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Punjab                                       ...Respondent

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:       Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Rajan Gupta, J (oral).

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking

pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections

392, 394, 323 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station

Goraya, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No.40 dated 20th March, 2009.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

The allegation in the FIR is that on 18th March, 2009, when

the complainant was on duty as a conductor in bus, he was assaulted by

four persons. One of them inflicted an injury on his head, two of them

were armed with pistols and two with iron rods. They snatched a bag

from him containing Rs.10,000/-. The passengers travelling in the bus

raised hue and cry. However, the assailants fled. A magazine of the

pistol fell in the bus while they were fleeing.

It is obvious that allegations levelled in the FIR are quite
CRM No. M-27580 of 2009 2

serious. The argument of the learned counsel about inadmissibility of

evidence available against the petitioner is not relevant at this stage. In

fact, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required to take the

investigation to its logical end. The petitioner approached the court of

Sessions at Jalandhar for anticipatory bail. However, the prosecution

apprised the court that in another case i.e. FIR No.28 dated 23rd June,

2009, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act,

registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, one Sarwan

Singh alias Kalu had made a disclosure statement naming the present

petitioner to be one of the robbers involved in the case.

Keeping in view the gravity of the offence allegedly

committed by the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of

concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is devoid

of merit and is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 05, 2009
‘rajpal’