Jaswant Singh @ Mottu @ Sonu v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-1186-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:-17.8.2022 Jaswant Singh @ Mottu @ Sonu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Gurmeet Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.153 dated 22.12.2020, Police Station D-Division, District Amrtisar, under Sections 379-B(2), 411, 323, 325, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Harmandeep Singh, wherein it is alleged that on 22.12.2020, when he alongwith Manpreet Kaur was going on a motorcycle and had stopped on the way as Manpreet Kaur was to attend a telephone call, then two young boys with shorn hair came there on a motorcycle. One of them put a mufler/cloth around his neck and started beating him and injured him. Thereafter when the complainant raised alarm, the said persons left the place while snatching the complainant's motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-02-DD-8185.

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.08.17 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-1186-2022 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is nowhere named in the FIR and came to be nominated falsely in the present case after about one month of the occurrence.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner as well as co-accused were arrested by the police on 12.1.2021 while they were travelling on the same motorcycle, which they snatched from the complainant and that the complainant duly identified both of them. It has further been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in one more case in respect of offence under Section 379 IPC. Learned State counsel has also informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 11⁄2 years and that 2 out of cited 16 PWs have been examined till date including the complainant and the eye-witness. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 11⁄2 years and that the complainant as well as the eye-witness already stand examined, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of trial is likely to consume time as only 2 out of cited 16 PWs have been examined till date. 7.

The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 17.8.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2022.08.17 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document