Crl. Misc. No. M-23013 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: September 2, 2011 Crl. Misc. No. M-23013 of 2011 Charanjit Singh @ Charni …… Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ……… Respondent *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of A.S.I Jagtar Singh alleging that he alongwith police party was present in a private car in connection with investigation of FIR No. 60 dated 30.03.2011, under Section 392 & 408 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act of Police Station, Gobindgarh, in which case, the petitioner alongwith Karamjit Singh and Satnam Singh residents of Karnal were accused. The petitioner’s car was stopped by complainant ASI Jagtar Singh on which the petitioner, his brother and father accompanied by the mother of the petitioner, fired at the police party. It is a case of no injury. While issuing notice in the application for pre-arrest bail on 01.08.2011, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The record of FIR No. 60 dated 30.03.2011 and the R.C. of the private vehicle, which was being used by the police for the purpose of investigation in case FIR No. 60 of 2011 was also sent for. The record of police file in case FIR No. 60 dated 30.03.2011 has been made available and the R.C. has also been produced in the Court, which reveals that the said vehicle stands in the name of one Rishikesh Nishikar R/o Pandav Nagar, Delhi. The vehicle seems to be hypothecated with ICICI Bank. The perusal of FIR No. 60 dated 30.03.2011, registered at the instance of Aditya Vikram R/o Himachal Pradesh indicates that the petitioner is in no manner connected with the said case. Without application of mind, the reference has been made in the present FIR regarding the FIR 60 dated 30.03.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner alongwith his mother Paramjit Kaur, father Satnam Singh and Brother Karamjit Singh were visiting Talwara village falling in District Fatehgarh Sahib and while going back they were attacked by some men in plain clothes. The said persons also fired at the car of the petitioner’s family. Later on, it turned out that those plain clothed men were actually policemen. In altercation, the vehicle belonging to the persons in plain clothes was also damaged by the petitioner and his family members. On account of said reasons, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the petitioner and his family members were unnecessarily stopped by plain clothed persons in altercation, their car was also damaged. After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the petitioner has no concern with FIR No. 60 of 2011 under Section 392 and 408 IPC. Neither any injury has been attributed to the petitioner in the alleged firing incident on Police Party nor by the police to the petitioner or his family members. It will also be debatable whether the petitioners can be attributed knowledge that the complainant was performing his Government duty in plain clothes in a private vehicle which belonged to one resident of Delhi. The petitioner has already joined investigation pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the condition that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is required by the Police in any other case, he will be given 7 days’ notice in writing so as to enable him to avail the legal remedy as per law. Disposed of. (M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE September 2, 2011 suresh