SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 109 dated 22.04.2013 for offences under Sections 304/307/395/353/332/186/436/427/109/120B/148/149 PC and Sections 3 /4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 42/45 of Prisons Act, 1894 registered at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody in case FIR No. 162 dated 09.05.2005 registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 148 and 149 PC and while in custody, a complaint was made to Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 13.03.2013 against the jail authority. It was mentioned in that complaint that the petitioner can be implicated falsely as he has been threatened by the jail officials. Immediately after moving representation on 13.03.2013, the present FIR has been registered on 22.04.2013. Learned counsel also submits that a detailed representation was sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 24.04.2013 and three petitions are pending before this Court whereby an investigation has been sought by independent agency. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner will remain in custody because of conviction in a murder case and in case, the petitioner is granted bail in this case, his right of availing parole will be available and because of this reason, the petitioner can be granted concession of parole for good reasons. Learned counsel also submits that general allegations are there against the petitioner and other persons and no specific role has been attributed to him. He further submits that till the pendency of the petitions before this Court for handing over the investigation to some independent agency, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. The challan was also filed hurriedly without waiting for the outcome of the petitions which are pending before this Court. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner along with others were implicated by the jail authority just to conceal their misdeeds due to which some of the prisoners died while in jail custody, whereas, the petitioner was not involved in any manner.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel opposes the bail of the petitioner keeping in view the seriousness of offence.