Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab 

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed to obtain regular bail for the petitioner, who is listed as a suspect in FIR No. 115, dated June 1, 2023, which was filed under a number of sections, including Sections 307/473 IPC, 25/27 of the arms act as well as Section 353/186/34 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act, were later added at Sadar Khrar Police Station. Since the occurrence date, the petitioner has been detained.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. According to the FIR, the petitioner and his friends were trying to escape in a car with a fictitious license plate after getting into an altercation at a gas station.
2. Based on confidential information, the police stopped the car.
3. The accused allegedly fired shots at the police party in an attempt to avoid being arrested.
4. The accused was taken into custody as a result of the police’s reprisal.
5. Gurpreet Singh and Harpreet Singh were taken into custody, and weapons were found on them.
6. The recovered firearms did not have licenses belonging to the defendants.
7. Since the event, the petitioner has been detained, and charges have already been presented in a challan.
8. There is no fear of evidence tampering because the majority of witnesses are law enforcement officers.

ISSUES RAISED 

• Is the petitioner’s detention warranted?
• If there is a possibility that the petitioner will alter the evidence or run away.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER 

• The petitioner asserts incorrect implications and asserts innocence.
• Despite claims of fire, the petitioner contends that there is no proof of any police personnel being hurt.
• The petitioner’s only past criminal record is a previous FIR that has nothing to do with the current case.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT 

• The state emphasizes the gravity of the accusations made against the petitioner while stating that it does not contest the factual claims.
• Despite acknowledging that nearly every witness is a member of the police force, the respondent maintains that the petitioner is facing significant charges.
• The respondent highlights the gravity of the accusations made against the petitioner but does not object to the petitioner’s release on bond.

JUDGEMENT 

The petitioner is granted bail by the court following its consideration of the arguments and the case file. The petitioner’s extended detention, the investigation’s result, the lack of evidence tampering danger, and the absence of police personnel injuries are among the elements that went into the decision. The court makes it clear that its decision regarding bail does not reflect its assessment of the case’s merits.

ANALYSIS 

In the analysis of this case, the court’s ruling strikes a balance between the petitioner’s right to liberty and the gravity of the charges brought against him. The petitioner’s extended custody, the absence of a risk of tampering with the evidence, and the lack of injuries to police officers are all taken into account as mitigating circumstances in favor of bail. Also in this case the court didn’t reference any specific precedent. 

CONCLUSION 

The court notes that its decision does not prejudge the case’s merits and grants bail to the petitioner. This decision emphasizes how crucial it is to weigh a person’s rights against the objectives of justice while dealing with criminal cases. The court’s equitable ruling that upholds the parties’ rights, ensures that justice is done, and keeps everyone safe is what matters most.

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93435252/

This article is written by Ankita Maurya student of Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun; Legal intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin