LOVE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No. 13 dtd. 14/1/2021 at Police Station Sadar Amritsar under Ss. 307, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

(2.) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Amarjit Singh @ Sonu, wherein it is alleged that on 13/1/2021, he had gone to visit his uncle Paramjit Singh on the occasion of "Lohri' festival and his uncle lit a bonfire in the street in front of his house. At about 8:30 p.m. Jas, Loveporeet @ Love (petitioner) and Vikram were also standing in the street and were hurling abuses loudly. The complainant and his uncle objected to the same and upon which they went away from the street. It is alleged that at about 10/10:30 p.m. Lovepreet Singh @ Love, Jas, Vikram, Balwinder Singh and Manjinder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh came there. Balwinder Singh raised a "lalkara' exhorting his companions that Amarjit Singh @ Sonu be returned the "money alongwith interest". It is alleged that the complainant had earlier advanced an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh as loan to Balwinder Singh on the asking of his uncle but he had not been returning back the same. It is alleged that Lovepreet Singh @ Love (petitioner) fired twice on the complainant from his pistol, which he was holding in his hand with an intention to kill him. Jas is also stated to have fired in the air. The shots hit complainant's arms. The other persons are alleged to have pelted stones. When the complainant and others raised alarm, Vikram, who was armed with "datar', Balwinder Singh, who was carrying "kirpan' ran away from the spot. Although efforts were being made for negotiating a compromise, but to no effect.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that as per the FIR, it is the shots fired by Jas, which had allegedly hit the complainant and that since Jas has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions, the petitioner also deserves the same concession on grounds of parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the injuries as described in the MLR do not reflect that the same have been inflicted with the help of a firearm as there is no reference to any blackening of wounds.