SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pentu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2017

CRM-M-27192-2017 -1-


Crl. Misc. No.M-27192 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: December 12, 2017

Pentu Singh


State of Punjab


Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner (s).

Ms. Seena Mand, DAG, Punjab.



The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of

Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No. 51 dated 31.05.2017 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 506, 427, 379, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal

Code; 25, 27 of Arms Act; 25-C of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful

Possession) Act, 1950 and 10 of Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981

at Police Station Mehna , District Moga.


Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the company has

got registered 13 more FIRs against other employees of the company at

various places is an attempt to get rid of its employees, who were working

with it at the salary of around `15,000/- per month, to replace them with

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2017 22:49:41 :::
CRM-M-27192-2017 -2-

employee at lesser salary.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Pritam Singh

submits that the petitioner who was contractual employee of complainant

has joined the investigation. However, the investigating officer is not aware

whether the company has got registered 13 more FIRs against the other

employees as alleged by the petitioner. She further submits that custodial

interrogation of petitioner is required to recover of pistol which was pointed

towards the complainant at the time of incident.

Admittedly, petitioner was an employee of company of

complainant on the day of incident. Investigating officer has not taken any

termination order of service of the petitioner on record. Version of

petitioner that this FIR is an attempt to get rid of him by complainant

company which has got recorded several other such FIRs against its other

employees, as well, is to be looked into during investigation.

Keeping in view of above facts but without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the order dated

28.07.2017 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the

following terms:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by the police as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior
permission of the Court.

(iv) that the petitioner will seek regular bail on the
2 of 3
15-12-2017 22:49:42 :::
CRM-M-27192-2017 -3-

presentation of challan in Court, which the trial Court
will decide on the basis of evidence collected during

December 12, 2017 JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 15-12-2017 22:49:42 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation