Jaswinder Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2009
 CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009                           1


                         1-     CRM No. M-2087 of 2009
                                Date of decision: 5.2.2009

Jaswinder Singh Gill                                 ...Petitioner
State of Punjab                                      ...Respondent

                         2-     CRM No. M-777 of 2009
                                Date of decision: 5.2.2009

Hardeep Singh                                        ...Petitioner
State of Punjab                                      ...Respondent


Present:    Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate and
            Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocates for the petitioners.

            Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

Rajan Gupta, J.

This order of mine shall dispose of above mentioned two

applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory

bail on behalf of Jaswinder Singh Gill and Hardeep Singh as the same

have arisen out of a common First Information Report No.62 dated 4th

May, 2008, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 120-B, read with Section 34

IPC, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have mainly contended

that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and in fact they have been

falsely implicated in this case. They thus deserve the concession of
CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009 2

anticipatory bail. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be roped in on the

basis of statement of co-accused.

Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the

grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that two persons namely, Nishan

Singh and Sandeep Singh, who were arrested in another case under

Sections 379, 420 IPC, registered against them at Police Station Bassi

Pathana, had clearly stated before the police that the petitioners Hardeep

Singh and Jaswinder Singh had committed the crime. According to the

counsel, the said accused had taken ‘Supari’ for killing the complainant

due to some dispute which had originated in Australia.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant, who is

otherwise settled in Australia, had come to Punjab on 8th March, 2008.

On 1st May, 2008 at about 8.30 P.M. when he, after purchasing shoes for

his children, entered his car, at that time one fashionable young man

came from behind. He held his neck and inflicted his krich blow on his

face and thereafter a second blow by the same weapon on right side of

his stomach. While trying to defend himself, he received injuries on his

right hand as well. The complainant was thereafter taken to Civil

Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib from where he was referred to P.G.I.

Chandigarh for treatment, but on the way his condition deteriorated and

as such he was admitted in Shivalik Hospital, Mohali and was

discharged from there.

In view of the fact that allegations against the petitioners
CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009 3

are very serious in nature, I am of the considered view that they do not

deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. It may not be possible for

the investigating agency to investigate the matter effectively in case the

petitioners are armed with a protective order from this Court. Moreover,

weapons of offence are yet to be recovered from the petitioners.

An additional ground has been pressed on behalf of the

petitioner Jaswinder Singh that his one leg is polio stricken and thus he

could not have participated in the crime.

However, learned State counsel (on instructions from

Investigating Officer who is present in Court) has stated that the said

accused was driving the car which was used in the crime. According to

the counsel accused Jaswinder Singh faces no difficulty in driving a car.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

considered view that the accused-petitioners Jaswinder Singh and

Hardeep Singh are not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.

Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

February 5, 2009

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *