KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegation against the petitioner is that he was arrested while he was sitting on the pillion of the scooter driven by Rajesh Kumar Sardana. A pistol is said to have been recovered from the latter. Subsequently two cartridges are said to have been recovered from the petitioner and F.I.R. No. 58 was registered on 16.3.1986 against Rajesh Kumar Sabana for being in possession of an unauthorised pistol. Another case on the same date was registered against the petitioner for being in possession of two cartridges. The petitioner was released on bail on 18.3.1986 and he reminded on bail till 10.12.1986 when non -bailable warrants were obtained by the investigating agency from the Ilaqa Magistrate on the ground that an offence under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 was also committed by the petitioner. Offence under Section 6 of the Act was also added against Rajesh Kumar Sardana who has been released on bail by I.S. Tiwana, J. in Criminal Misc. No. 1052 of 1987, vide his order dated 18.2.1987.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the Union Territory contends that offence under Section 6 of the said Act is a serious offence and bail is not the normal rule unless the court gives a finding that no offence is made out against the accused and the Court should be satisfied that the accused would not commit any such offence while on bail.

(3.) THIS case was registered on 16.3.1996 and the petitioner was release on bail on 18.3.1986. For about nine months, the investigation agency was sleeping over the mater. If an offence under Section 6 of the said Act had been made out, it was made out on 16.3.1986 itself. The learned counsel for the Union Territory has admitted that section 6 has been added on the same facts on which FIR No. 59 dated 16.3.1986 was registered. The case of Rajesh Kumar Sardanan is quite similar rather a pistol was recovered from him and the had already been released on bail. There are no additional factors against the petitioner. In view of the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied than no offence under Section 6 of the said Act is made out. Further satisfaction of the Court that the accused will not commit any offence while on bail depends upon the circumstances of each case. From the allegations made in the first information report, there is no indication that the petitioner will commit an offence while on bail. In view of the discussion above I allow the bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh/Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate of Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh. Petition Allowed.