CRM- M 33830 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 33830 of 2011 Date of decision : November 18, 2011 Jagdip Singh @ Jagga, ...... Petitioner v. State of Punjab, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.188, dated 27.9.2011, registered under Sections 223, 224, 225, 120-B, 109 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. On 9.11.2011, the following contention was noticed :- “ Learned counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are that he gave a car to Gurmeet Singh but actually the petitioner has no car in his name. Apart from that as per learned counsel there is no mention of the petitioner's name in the FIR.” Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from HC Manpreet Singh, has stated that after escaping, the main accused Gurmeet Singh and Pritam Singh who had helped him were arrested on the next day and on their CRM- M 33830 of 2011 ::2:: arrest, Pritam Singh was found to be in possession of a weapon. As per the learned counsel, on a disclosure statement it was revealed that after Pritam Singh helped Gurmeet Singh to escape on a motor cycle, the petitioner met them on the way and gave them a car and while these two escaped in the car, the petitioner took the motor cycle and went away somewhere else. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if this narration is taken to be true, then the offence under the Arms Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner because he was not present with the other accused when the weapon was recovered. As per the learned counsel, all other offences complained of are bailable. Counsel for the respondent has accepted this fact. In these circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.11.2011 or on any other day on which he requires the presence of the petitioner, and in the event of his appearance, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18, 2011. JUDGE `kk'