In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-7714 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:2.7.2010 Iqbal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-9229 of 2010 ..... Pavittar Singh alias Golu .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Parminder P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-7714 of 2010 filed by Iqbal Singh and Criminal Misc M-9229 of 2010 filed by Pavittar Singh @ Golu. The respective petitioners in the two petitions pray for regular bail in a case registered against them on 18.1.2010 for the offences under Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [2] Sections 399 and 402 IPC; besides Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR has been recorded on the basis of a memo sent by Inspector Rajesh Kumar Chhibbar. It is alleged by the said Inspector that on 18.1.2010, he along with other Police officials was present at Nehar Chowk, Barnala on a government vehicle driven by HC Kala Singh. They were there in connection with patrolling. At about 6.40 p.m., an informer gave information that in the Grain Market, Barnala near the Water Tank, Iqbal Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc M-7714 of 2010), Gurmeet Singh (non- petitioner), Pavittar Singh @ Golu (petitioner in Criminal Misc M-9229 of 2010), Gurpeet Singh @ Babla, Jagjit Singh, Raja (non-petitioners) and two unknown persons had hidden un-licensed arms and other weapons. They were also having a Safari and an Indica vehicle. They had conspired with each other and were making preparations for extortion and dacoity and in case a raid is conducted, they could be apprehended and un-licensed weapons and other weapons were likely to be recovered and incidents of dacoity can be avoided. The information was considered credible and offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC; besides Section 25 of the Arms Act was made out for making preparations to commit dacoity by the said persons. Accordingly, a memo was sent against the aforesaid persons including the petitioners through HC Balaur Singh. Besides, a special report was asked to be sent to the higher officers. Inspector Rajesh Kumar Chhibbar stated that he along with other Police officials was proceeding towards the place of occurrence. During investigation of the case, a Kirpan was recovered from the possession of Iqbal Singh – petitioner. An iron rod (Khanda) was recovered from Pavittar Singh – petitioner. From the co- Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [3] accused Gurpreet Singh (non-petitioner), a .45 bore revolver along with six cartridges was recovered. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for petitioner – Iqbal Singh submits that the petitioner Iqbal Singh has been falsely implicated in the case because various other cases are pending against him. It is submitted that 9 cases apart from the present case have been registered against him. Out of the said 9 cases, the petitioner has compromised six cases and in one case, he has been acquitted. Besides, in two other cases, he has been granted bail because only a `Lalkara' had been attributed to him. Therefore, it is on account of the aforesaid cases that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. Mr. Parminder Sharma, Advocate for Pavittar Singh – petitioner submits that the petitioner has also been implicated in the present case because apart from the present case, he has been involved in 10 other cases. It has been submitted that in two cases for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC; besides, in a case for the offences under Sections 324, 201 and 34 IPC and in two other cases relating to offences under Sections 325, 340 148 and 149 IPC and the other case for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 506, 341 and 148, he has been acquitted. In five cases, he is on bail. Besides, he has been taken in Police custody and is in jail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307, 427, 324, 148 and 149 IPC; besides Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the present case recovery of weapons have been effected from the petitioners and they are involved in other cases and, therefore, they have the propensity towards Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [4] criminal activities. As such, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. In the present cases a Kirpan has been recovered from the petitioner Iqbal Singh; besides, an iron rod (Khanda) has been recovered from the petitioner Pavittar Singh alias Golu. Besides, there are several other cases which are registered against the petitioners. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner Iqbal Singh has given the details of cases against petitioner Iqbal Singh and their results as follows:- 1. FIR No.193 dated 24.10.1998 under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 34 IPC - Acquitted. 2. FIR No.299 dated 6.12.2000 under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC - Compromised/undergone. 3. FIR No.65 dated 23.10.2001 under Sections 302, 326, 323, 324, 402, 148 and 149 IPC - Appeal admitted/bail granted. 4. FIR No.20 dated 23.5.2007 under Sections 307, 148, 149, 326, 324 and 323 IPC and Sections 25 of the Arms Act. - Bail granted. 5. FIR No.116 dated 30.8.2007 under Sections 395, 307, 452, 323, 506, 221, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. - Compromised. 6. FIR No.112 dated 22.8.2007 under Sections 452, 380, 427, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27of the Arms Act. - Compromised. 7. FIR No.58 dated 29.6.2008 under Sections 188 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. - Bail granted. 8. FIR No.98 dated 26.7.2007 under Sections 341, 506, 148, 149, 336, 323 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. - Acquitted. Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [5] 9. FIR No.120 dated 14.9.2007 under Sections 336, 148 and 149 IPC - Not accused in this case. Mr. Parminder P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Pavittar Singh has given a details of 10 cases and their results as follows:- 1. FIR No.140 dated 20.8.2005 under Sections 399 and 402 IPC - Acquitted. 2. FIR No.169 dated 13.6.2005 under Sections 323, 324, 201 and 34 IPC - Acquitted. 3. FIR No.98 dated 9.4.2006 under Sections 452, 426, 506, 148 and 149 IPC - On bail. 4. FIR No.12 dated 10.2.2007 under Sections 325, 342, 148 and 149 IPC - Acquitted. 5. FIR No.117 dated 5.7.2008 under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 506 IPC. - On Bail. 6. FIR No.23 dated 18.3.2007 under Sections 307, 326, 506, 341 and 148 IPC - Acquitted. 7. FIR No.43 dated 9.2.2008 under Sections 341, 148 and 149 IPC - On Bail. 8. FIR No.78 dated 12.4.2008 under Sections 24 of the Excise Act - On Bail. 9. FIR No.7 dated 13.1.2009 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC - On Bail. 10. FIR No.214 dated 26.12.2009 under Sections 307, 427, 324, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 27 of the Arms Act - Petitioner was taken on remand and is in jail. Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [6] The above said cases indeed show that the petitioners have been involved in other cases. However, it may be noticed that in most of the cases they have been acquitted or the cases have been compromised. From the number of cases that are registered against the petitioners it can be said that they have propensity towards crime. It may, however, be noticed that in the present case the charges have been framed in the cases on 12.6.2010 and one PW has been examined. The prosecution is to examine 13 other witnesses. Therefore, the trial in the case is likely to take time. In the circumstances, Mr. Goel has suggested that some conditions may be imposed to the effect that in case the petitioners are granted the concession of bail and in case there is misuse of the said concession, then the bail that has been granted may be cancelled. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this indeed would be the appropriate course to be adopted because in the present case, the recovery of weapons has been effected and the custody of the petitioners is not required. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The prosecution is yet to establish its case. In the other cases against the petitioners, they have either been acquitted or the matter has been compromised. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the respective petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail. The petitioners shall file an undertaking that while on bail they shall not misuse the concession of bail and shall maintain peace and good behaviour. They shall also furnish another surety of a respectable person of their village who shall undertake Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7714 of 2010 etc. [7] that while on bail, the petitioners shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour and in the event of breach of the undertaking, the concession of bail that has been granted shall be cancelled. July 2, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *ASR/hsp*