Punjab-Haryana High CourtAkash Hans @ Gago Etc vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2016Author:Inderjit SinghBench:Inderjit SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                  (1)                     CRM No.M-2584 of 2016 (O&M)


Akash Hans @ Gago and others
                                                               ...Petitioners

                                   VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                              ...Respondent

                  (2)                     CRM No.M-7929 of 2016 (O&M)


Prabhjot Singh @ Star
                                                                ...Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                              ...Respondent

                                            Date of Decision:- July 13, 2016


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:    Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr.P.S.Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
            for the respondent-State.

            Mr.Naveen Kaushik, Advocate
            for the complainant.

                  ****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together being

arisen from same FIR.Petitioners Prabhjot Singh @ Star, Akash Hans @ Gago,

Yashpal @ Pal, Tarlochan Singh @ Sunny, Neeraj Sharma @ Neeraj Pandit
                              1 of 3::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2016 23:58:06 :::CRM No.M-2584 of 2016 and connected case                                -2-


and Gagandeep Singh have filed these petitions underSection 438Cr.P.C.

for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.92 dated 08.09.2015 underSections

307,326,324,323,506,148,149and379-BIPC andSection 25of the

Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.Notice of motion was issued in both the petitions and learned

State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and

contested the petitions.I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned

State counsel and have gone through the record.From the record, I find that, in the present case, the FIR was

registered on the statement of Sanjiv Kumar Chohan @ Minta. As per the

allegations, Jatinder Kumar, worker of Vishav Hindu Parishad came to the

complainant, who was organizing a langer from the side of Bajrang Dal and

told him that his brother-in-law Prabhjot Singh @ Star was giving life

threats to him. As per the FIR, all the petitioners are named in the FIR. All

of them were armed with weapon and except petitioner Gagandeep Singh,

injuries are attributed to all the petitioners. Though Gagandeep Singh was

stated to be armed with danda, but no injury is attributed to him. He has

also joined the investigation and not required for custodial interrogation.

Nothing is to be recovered from petitioner Gagandeep Singh.Keeping in view the above facts, I find that petitioner

Gagandeep Singh is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.      Therefore,

petition qua petitioner Gagandeep Singh is allowed and the order dated

25.02.2016 granting interim bail to petitioner Gagandeep Singh is made

absolute.As regarding other accused, I find that petitioners Prabhjot
                               2 of 3::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2016 23:58:06 :::CRM No.M-2584 of 2016 and connected case                                   -3-


Singh @ Star, Akash Hans @ Gago, Yashpal @ Pal, Tarlochan Singh @

Sunny were armed with khanda each and petitioner Neeraj Sharma @

Neeraj Pandit was armed with revolver and injuries have been attributed to

them. It is also in the FIR that after causing the injuries, they also took with

them the licenced revolver of the complainant after snatching the same from

him. All these petitioners are required for custodial interrogation.Keeping in view the above facts and circumstance, I do not find

it a fit case where petitioners Prabhjot Singh @ Star, Akash Hans @ Gago,

Yashpal @ Pal, Tarlochan Singh @ Sunny and petitioner Neeraj Sharma @

Neeraj Pandit are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.Resultantly, CRM No.M-7929 of 2016 stands dismissed and

CRM No.M-2584 of 2016 stands allowed qua petitioner Gagandeep Singh

and stand dismissed qua other petitioners Akash Hans @ Gago, Yashpal @

Pal, Tarlochan Singh @ Sunny and Neeraj Sharma @ Neeraj Pandit


July 13, 2016                                        (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati                                                   JUDGE




                               3 of 3::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2016 23:58:06 :::