Amit Mor v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.1.2022 AMIT MOR ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent *****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH ***** Present:- Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Sewak, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

***** KARAMJIT SINGH , J. (Oral) Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case having FIR No.170 dated 23.8.2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 66, 66(C) of Information Technology, Act, 2000 at Police Station Khanna City-2 District Khanna.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. It is further contended that no incriminating article

( 2 ) was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who is already in custody for the last more than 4 months and is having no criminal history. Counsel for the petitioner has sought parity with co-accused Navjot Kaur @ Navjot Kaur Saroan, who has already been granted regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The bail application is contested by the State counsel, who submitted that the petitioner is facing serious charges that he along with other accused tried to temper with the documents of the candidates to give them undue benefit in the written examination, however the State counsel did not dispute the factual position.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession by the police. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than 4 months and is not facing any other criminal case as is clear from the custody certificate. On completion of investigation, challan has been presented against the petitioner and other accused and it will take time for conclusion of the trial due to prevalent COVID-19 situation. Moreover co-accused Navjot Kaur @ Navjot Kaur Saroan who is also facing similar charges has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021.

In view of the above, no purpose is going to be served even if the petitioner is kept in judicial custody for any longer period. Thus without

( 3 ) commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. ( KARAMJIT SINGH) 24.1.2022 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No