IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M-12596 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.7.2010 Darshan Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Baldev Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.A.G.Punjab **** ORDER The present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for gant of regular bail to petitioner Darshan Singh in case FIR No. 13 dated 26.1.2010 registered under Sections 353/186/324/506/467/468/471 IPC and Section 307 IPC which was added later on, at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur. Notice of motion was issued to Advocate General, Punjab on 5.5.2010. Mr.Baldev Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and even from bare perusal of contents of the FIR, no case is made out under Section 307 IPC and moreover no specific allegation or overt-act has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner has been alleged to be present at the place of occurrence and no role has been attributed to him. Crl.Misc. No. M-12596 of 2010 [2] Even during investigation, no incriminating article was recovered from him.Mr.Baldev Singh also submits that the allegations are against only co- accused Sohan Lal ASI and the present petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than five months and trial may take some time to conclude. Mr.Vishal Munjal, learned Addl.A.G.Punjab opposes the bail on the ground that serious allegations are there against the present petitioner as he was not only present at the time of occurrence but also helped the other co-accused in over-powering the complainant. As per allegations in the FIR, the main accused ASI Sohan Lal along with two other police officials over-powered the complainant who went there as Warrant Officer, appointed by the High Court and he was detained in a room after snatching document of the writ petition and order passed by the High Court along with his mobile. Mr.Munjal further submits that the present petitioner was on duty and the occurrence took place in his presence and he helped the other accused and obstructed the complainant in performance of his official duties assigned by the Court of law. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. As per contents of the FIR, the present petitioner as well as Constable Balwinder Singh were present in the Police Post at the time of arrival of the complainant and their identity was disclosed by them. ASI Sohan Lal Tanwar, In-charge of the Police Post threatened, slapped and also put his service revolver on the head of the complainant and also confined him in a room. All allegations are against ASI Sohan Lal and the petitioner was present in the Police Post and no role has been attributed to Crl.Misc. No. M-12596 of 2010 [3] him. It is simply mentioned that ASI Sohan Lal along with two other police officials confined the complainant in a room and locked him from inside. Nowhere it is mentioned that the petitioner was one of those two police officials who locked the complainant. It is a question which is to be decided only on the basis of evidence and cannot be commented here and as such presumption cannot be raised either way. Moreover, the name of present petitioner was in the knowledge of complainant as mentioned in FIR. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 5 months and trial may take sometime in final conclusion. Investigation has already been completed and no recovery is to be effected from him. The present application is allowed and petitioner Darshan Singh is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur. However, it is made clear that anything observed here-in- above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 16, 2010. raghav