SANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely, Sandeep Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Jaspal Singh @ Kala and Jatinder Singh @ Binder, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 452, and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No.115, dated 23.09.2013, registered at Police Station, Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a dispute over a property between petitioner No.1 and Singara Singh (father -in -law of the complainant -Iqbal Singh); that the said dispute was settled down since petitioner No.1 had paid a sum of Rs. 43,00,000/ -; that in spite of the fact that four persons fired from their respective weapons, no one received injuries; that the petitioners have joined the investigation and they disclosed to the police that they (petitioners) had not used any firearm rather a person accompanying them had used the firearm by firing the shots in air to repel the aggression shown by the complainant side by firing the shots from the upper portion of the house. He further contends that in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2013, the petitioners have joined the investigation and co -operated with the Investigating Agency, therefore, their further custodial interrogation is not required in the present case. He also contends that the matter was investigated by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Khanna, and he found that the shots, which hit the wall or the window frame of the house, could not be fired from the ground floor since the directions of the shots was revealing otherwise.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jagroop Singh, Police Station, Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, though concedes that the petitioners did appear before the Investigating Officer but submits that they did not co -operate with him to get the firearm recovered, rather the petitioners put up a counter case stating that the forth person accompanying them had fired shots in air in his self -defence. He further submits that the petitioners have even failed to disclose the name of the said person. He however admitted the fact that no person had received injuries in the present case.