Mohanjeet Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Mohanjeet Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents no.2 and 3 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide orders dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure P-4), in a case registered by way of FIR No.38 dated 20.01.2011 at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 382, and 506 read with section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against Mandeep Singh, respondent no.3, there are three cases. He drew my attention to Annexure P-5/T, a complaint made by Amritpal Singh to Station House Officer, Police Station Lahori Gate, Patiala against Mandeep Singh and 5-6 other unknown persons. He further drew my attention to Annexure P-6/T, a copy of daily diary report no.14 dated 01.08.2011 entered at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala. According to him, 3rd is FIR No. 273 dated 30.10.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 325, 341 and 506 read with section 149 IPC (Annexure P-7/T). According to him, against Ishatpreet Singh, respondent no.2, there is one case registered by way of FIR No. 29 dated 21.01.2011 for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 341 and 506 read with section 149 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there are serious allegations of snatching gold chain and causing injuries against respondents no.2 and 3. According to him, respondent no.3 is involved in many cases and that speaking order has not been passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and he has allowed bail simply for the reason that respondents no. 2 and 3 had joined the investigation. According to him, though he is not before this court on the ground of misuse of the concession of bail by respondents no.2 and 3, yet the said misuse of the concession of bail by them is also not missing. According to him, respondents no.2 and 3 are not allowing the petitioner to move freely and that they are roaming around him. According to him, the material facts regarding involvement of respondents no.2 and 3 in other cases had not been disclosed before the court and in such a case where the gold chain was not even recovered, anticipatory bail should not have been allowed.

Learned State counsel on the other hand supported the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the cases registered against respondents no.2 and 3 earlier to this case. He has, however, submitted that there was no misuse of the concession of bail.

Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner is an influential person. According to him, respondents no.2 and 3 had been minors at the time of the occurrence. He has further submitted that respondents no.2 and 3 had been beaten by the side of the petitioner and the police did not even register a case on their report. He has further submitted that regarding this very FIR, Jora Singh, ASI, Police Station Sadar Patiala, conducted enquiry and his report Annexure R-2/1 shows that during the meeting to settle some matter between the parties, a minor altercation took place in which neither party suffered any injury. He also concluded that nothing regarding snatching of chain and money had come out during the enquiry. No FIR was registered on the basis of complaint Annexure P-5 /T. Though FIR is claimed to have been registered on the basis of entry in the daily diary (Annexure P-6/T), there is said to be FIR No.273 dated 30.10.2011. Still the seriousness of the allegations regarding snatching of gold chain had been negatived by the enquiry officer, Jora Singh, ASI. The court had the report of Jora Singh, ASI before it and for the fact that respondents no.2 and 3 were minors on the date of deciding the petition for anticipatory bail, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, does not seem to have committed any illegality in allowing anticipatory bail to respondents no.2 and 3. The submissions regarding misuse of concession of bail are very vague. Respondents no.2 and 3 are claimed to have been roaming around the petitioner and not allowing him free movements. No complaint had ever been made in this regard by the petitioner to the police. Respondents no.2 and 3 are not claimed to have ever talked to the petitioner in any manner after the grant of bail. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason for cancellation of bail granted to respondents no. 2 and 3 in the above mentioned case. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.