Navdeep Singh Alias Navi vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navdeep Singh Alias Navi vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2009

                         Criminal Misc. No. M-15592 of 2009
                         Date of decision : July 14, 2009

Navdeep Singh alias Navi

State of Punjab

Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

Present :    Ms. Poonam Tara, Advocate, for the petitioner

             Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Navdeep Singh alias Navi has filed this petition for bail in case

FIR No. 46 dated 5.2.2009, under sections 307, 354, 186, 353 read with

section 34 IPC and 25 of Arms Act and 68(1) K of the Police Act, Police

Station Civil Line, Amritsar.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

According to the prosecution version, six persons on three motorcycles

were teasing passer-by females. Police put barricades to stop them but they

crossed from wrong side. Riders of two motorcycles fled away but two

riders of the third motorcycle threatened the police party. The pillion rider

took out a pistol and fired at the police party but the shot was deflected as

police official wielded his danda which hit the right wrist of the
Criminal Misc. No. M-15592 of 2009 -2-

pillion rider. Both the riders of the said motorcycle were apprehended.

They disclosed the names of other four accused who had escaped on two

motorcycles. The petitioner was one of them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific role

has been attributed to the petitioner nor he threatened or attacked the police

party. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 15.2.2009

i.e. for almost five months. It is also contended that the only role attributed

to the petitioner is that he escaped the barricades put up by the police and

was allegedly teasing some females. This factual position is not

controverted by learned State counsel after seeking instructions from HC

Gurdev Singh. However, it is also stated that a knife prohibited under the

Arms Act was recovered from the petitioner.

Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to

express any opinion on the merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail

to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate,


                                                       ( L.N. Mittal )
July 14, 2009                                               Judge

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 *